WEAR OPPOSE 2008
Ian
stick in a window or back of your car...
http://www.geocities.com/beefnetuk/OPPOSE2008.doc
Obiously a red and whiter a bit pissed off at the Addidas advert. ;-)
Ian
Syanide
virus.. wonder which.?
Post the instructions and a link to a picture that is on your website..
thats if its not sus...
"Ian" <iai...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:acc5ee50.03052...@posting.google.com...
pj
and stick it on the car windows (the one called 'have a laugh at
sunderland.)
cheers
pj.
"Syanide" <m...@knowhere.com> wrote in message
news:tbcza.265$9F6.2...@news-text.cableinet.net...
Ian
because as the lad who sent me it pointed out, he was sick and tired
of hearing how wonderful Newcastle and Gateshead were...
No viruses or trojans, just a crappy word document.
Ian
"Syanide" <m...@knowhere.com> wrote in message news:<tbcza.265$9F6.2...@news-text.cableinet.net>...
DoctorMick
> because as the lad who sent me it pointed out, he was sick and tired
> of hearing how wonderful Newcastle and Gateshead were...
>
> No viruses or trojans, just a crappy word document.
>
> Ian
>
And that whole 2008 thing will do Sunderland some good anyway IMO.
--
DoctorMick
Colin
Rome and none of those cities come anywhere near the breathtaking beauty of
the Gateshead indoor market. I remember leaving the Gateshead Metro station
and gaping open mouthed at the glory that was Gateshead city centre. The
people are some of the most cultured I have ever seen, I observed one family
( a mother of about 16 years old, 3 small kids eating Greggs pasties and
swigging coke from the bottle and a male friend) avidly reading their copies
of Dickens and Shakespeare before the mother shouted "Shut up you little
cu*t and eat your fuc*ing pastie"
Colin
Cyril The Squirrel
iai...@yahoo.com says...
> I'm pulling it anyway, it's naff to start with and I only shoved it on
> because as the lad who sent me it pointed out, he was sick and tired
> of hearing how wonderful Newcastle and Gateshead were...
>
> No viruses or trojans, just a crappy word document.
>
> Ian
Lighten up, you can't really be that jealous of Newcastle and Gateshead,
can you?
It's about time the NE had some good publicity, long may it continue.
Wasitchu
news:balusc$19nou$1...@ID-36697.news.dfncis.de...
> But Gateshead is a city of culture. I have visited Paris, Athens,
Florence,
> Rome and none of those cities come anywhere near the breathtaking beauty
of
> the Gateshead indoor market. I remember leaving the Gateshead Metro
station
> and gaping open mouthed at the glory that was Gateshead city centre. The
> people are some of the most cultured I have ever seen, I observed one
family
> ( a mother of about 16 years old, 3 small kids eating Greggs pasties and
> swigging coke from the bottle and a male friend) avidly reading their
copies
> of Dickens and Shakespeare before the mother shouted "Shut up you little
> cu*t and eat your fuc*ing pastie"
>
> Colin
>
Ian
...but Geordies saying 'We might trhow the odd crumb to the Mackems'
is sort of rubbing it in a bit.
Make use of a few venues in Sunderland and call it 'Newcastle,
Gateshead and Sundderland 2008'?
Ian
P.S. Yea, okay, I admit it, I'm jealous!
Cyril The Squirrel <why_are_you@this_pigsty.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.1938aacb3...@news.btinternet.com>...
Mick
You are obviously not a tax payer on Wearside, or you would not have
said that.
Its not about jealousy, its about anger. We paid our share for the
upkeep of the old and the building of the new in Newcastle, and we got
fuck all. We paid our share for the Metro, we got a poor shambolic
extension years later. We paid our share for the shopping centre in
Newcastle (whats its name again? The one off Northumberland Street),
and then it was sold and we did not get a penny.
Then, when it was Sunderlands "turn" Tyne and Wear was abolished.
Strange timing that.
But wait, there is more. Sir John Hall. Took our basketball and
Durhams ice hockey teams, to try and build his amazingly self-centred
"Sporting Club Newcastle". Until it collapsed. Not enough money in
these smaller sports (even though Durham Wasps had been incredibly
succesfull).
But then there is the Lottery, surely that will give us a fair deal?
What does Sunderland need? Another bridge, so we applied for lottery
funding for the millenium, only to be told we didn't need one really,
that all those people trying to get across the river after a football
match must me a mirage. So instead, Newcastle get it, even though it
was hardly necessary. To rub salt in, they made it building of the
year, and got a famous Mackem on tv to talk about it. And who was head
of the lottery commision at the time the bridge decision was made? Sir
John Hall.
So excuse us if we do not share your bid for city of Culture. I know
there is some hidden adgenda to make Newcastle and Gateshead one city
(just like Budapest, now, I wonder which will be Bude and which will
be Pest). Some of us want to know when half of your taxes are going to
pay for our city, which is after all, the largest city in the North
East. And possibly one of the most run-down. One Theatre, no cinemas,
one ancient bowling alley, one museam, one (?) art gallery, one glass
centre, and errr, thats it.
Oh, and if you do win, more joy for Sunderland, as we will be footing
half the police bill, as we still share Northumbria Police (good name
eh?). Please, please, put us in County Durham, I'd rather share with
the knuckleheads of Darlo......
---
Mike Garry
Cyril The Squirrel
@hotmail.com says...
> snip
>
> You are obviously not a tax payer on Wearside, or you would not have
> said that.
the mackems so they can build stupid fountains on roundabouts. Then
when the water blows onto the road the £100,000 fountain becomes a big
plant pot.
Do you think the majority of Washington tax payers went to see the money
going to sund*****d? Simple answer, no.
> Its not about jealousy, its about anger. We paid our share for the
> upkeep of the old and the building of the new in Newcastle, and we got
> fuck all. We paid our share for the Metro, we got a poor shambolic
> extension years later.
You asked for the Metro and got it, is it paying it's way? No, because
the people who asked for it didn't want it.
The green eyes at work again.
> We paid our share for the shopping centre in
> Newcastle (whats its name again? The one off Northumberland Street),
> and then it was sold and we did not get a penny.
>
> Then, when it was Sunderlands "turn" Tyne and Wear was abolished.
> Strange timing that.
They should have only abolished wear.
> But wait, there is more. Sir John Hall. Took our basketball and
> Durhams ice hockey teams, to try and build his amazingly self-centred
> "Sporting Club Newcastle". Until it collapsed. Not enough money in
> these smaller sports (even though Durham Wasps had been incredibly
> succesfull).
Sir John is a private individual who can do what he wants with his
money, just like you.
> But then there is the Lottery, surely that will give us a fair deal?
> What does Sunderland need? Another bridge, so we applied for lottery
> funding for the millenium, only to be told we didn't need one really,
> that all those people trying to get across the river after a football
> match must me a mirage. So instead, Newcastle get it, even though it
> was hardly necessary. To rub salt in, they made it building of the
> year, and got a famous Mackem on tv to talk about it. And who was head
> of the lottery commision at the time the bridge decision was made? Sir
> John Hall.
A football match. And how often would that be used? You could try
building a toll bridge with private funds for match day. No you had
better not or you would have to give free tickets away.
You could always apply to the lottery again and remind them that you'll
have 23 home league games this coming season instead of only 19 iin teh
premiership.
Maybe the clubs going to fund the bridge, that's probably why they've
asked the players to take a drop in wages. I never thought of that at
first, silly me.
> So excuse us if we do not share your bid for city of Culture. I know
> there is some hidden adgenda to make Newcastle and Gateshead one city
> (just like Budapest, now, I wonder which will be Bude and which will
> be Pest). Some of us want to know when half of your taxes are going to
> pay for our city, which is after all, the largest city in the North
> East. And possibly one of the most run-down. One Theatre, no cinemas,
> one ancient bowling alley, one museam, one (?) art gallery, one glass
> centre, and errr, thats it.
Do you not think it's run down because that's the way the inhabitants
have made it?
A glass centre with something in common with the Metro extension and
football club.
You've got an airport and Nissan, my mistake you've got neither because
they are in Washington.
By the way, I think it's time the air show was moved to Whitley Bay, it
would be much better and get more visitors.
> Oh, and if you do win, more joy for Sunderland, as we will be footing
> half the police bill, as we still share Northumbria Police (good name
> eh?). Please, please, put us in County Durham, I'd rather share with
> the knuckleheads of Darlo......
I'm sure Darlington would love that to happen.
Cyril The Squirrel
@btinternet.com says...
> snip
It looks like a case of if we're not getting it you're not. Pathetic,
and they say they don't have a chip.
Dave D
What a pity an intelligent, well thought out post by Mick should attract a
complete neatherthal with no semblance of an intelligent rebuttal. And in
case you hadn't realised, Washington is in, wait for it, Sunderland.
Sunderland taxpayers money built Washington, I don't think Washington has
anything to grumble about.
Dave
Chris F
<som...@somewhere.com> wrote:
>What a pity an intelligent, well thought out post by Mick should attract a
>complete neatherthal with no semblance of an intelligent rebuttal. And in
>case you hadn't realised, Washington is in, wait for it, Sunderland.
>Sunderland taxpayers money built Washington, I don't think Washington has
>anything to grumble about.
and the Roman's established London, does that mean cockneys should pay
for italian roadworks?
Wasitchu
"Dave D" <som...@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:baovev$ggi$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
DoctorMick
> > Its not about jealousy, its about anger. We paid our share for the
> > upkeep of the old and the building of the new in Newcastle, and we got
> > fuck all. We paid our share for the Metro, we got a poor shambolic
> > extension years later.
>
> You asked for the Metro and got it, is it paying it's way? No, because
> the people who asked for it didn't want it.
>
> The green eyes at work again.
I think it is starting to pay for itself now but the reason it wasn't doing
well when it first started it because it was unreliable as hell! That seems
to have been sorted out now and the trains always seem to be quite busy
these days. If it still isn't doing well then bad management ands planning
will need to take some of the blame, they didn't exactly put it to the
places that needed it most or would have used it!
> Do you not think it's run down because that's the way the inhabitants
> have made it?
That combined with a negative soft council!
>
> A glass centre with something in common with the Metro extension and
> football club.
>
It was a bad idea to put the glass centre up here!
> You've got an airport and Nissan, my mistake you've got neither because
> they are in Washington.
Technically, Nissan is in Sunderland and the airport is one of the things I
reckon our council done right, I wouldn't have liked one near me and IIRC
they made quite a bit of money off the one in Newcastle.
--
DoctorMick
DoctorMick
news:bap8q6$t66$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
> Last time I checked, Washington was in Tyne & Wear
>
It is in the borough of Sunderland, same as places like Springwell etc.
--
DoctorMick
Chris F
such a pretty place springwell.
*cough*
John Broughton
"Chris F" <ch...@asif.com> wrote in message
news:sb41dvkqg40dmhjch...@4ax.com...
Springwell village is nice, but not the estate
It would appear that placenames ending in "Well" are all nice ?
Meadow(Hell)
Pennywell
Springwell
Well, well, well
Dave D
Ah yes, that's a very good example. The Romans were a foreign invading force
who left our shores hundreds of years ago. Washington was a small existing
village which was turned into a massive modern dwelling area at the expense
of Sunderland taxpayers. Yes yes, I can see the similarities....
It's quite simple, if Sunderland taxpayer's money wasn't spent on Washington
then all these anti-Sunderland residents wouldn't have a home there in the
first place. The new town has probably had quite a disproportionate amount
of taxpayers money spent on it, but that is OK because it's part of
Sunderland. The real whingers aren't Sunderland folk, they're the 'Geordies'
living in Washington and moaning about Sunderland all the time.
Do you think if Geordies were asked to contribute half the cash to build a
shopping centre or Metro in, say, Middlesbrough, they'd be quite happy to do
so? Bear in mind that you would really need to imagine that your city was
lacking in basic facilities like Sunderland, and you're watching another
city get those very facilities at the expense of your own place, sound fair
to you? Answer honestly please, it would be nice to get a straight and
honest answer from a Geordie on this matter.
Dave
Cyril The Squirrel
says...
> snip
>
> What a pity an intelligent, well thought out post by Mick should attract a
> complete neatherthal with no semblance of an intelligent rebuttal. And in
> case you hadn't realised, Washington is in, wait for it, Sunderland.
> Sunderland taxpayers money built Washington, I don't think Washington has
> anything to grumble about.
>
> Dave
The intelligent post just looked like a moaning rant to me.
Washington became part of sund*****d in the last 10 years or so.
As for your tax payers paying for it, prove it. I think you'll find
that it was built with government money (Washington development
corporation) so all of us paid for it, not just sund*****d tax payers.
Cyril The Squirrel
says...
> snip
>
> Ah yes, that's a very good example. The Romans were a foreign invading force
> who left our shores hundreds of years ago. Washington was a small existing
> village which was turned into a massive modern dwelling area at the expense
> of Sunderland taxpayers. Yes yes, I can see the similarities....
At the expense of who?
Washington was and still is a small village it's also a town. A town
built up around quite a few little villages, so what?
> It's quite simple, if Sunderland taxpayer's money wasn't spent on Washington
> then all these anti-Sunderland residents wouldn't have a home there in the
> first place. The new town has probably had quite a disproportionate amount
> of taxpayers money spent on it, but that is OK because it's part of
> Sunderland. The real whingers aren't Sunderland folk, they're the 'Geordies'
> living in Washington and moaning about Sunderland all the time.
How do you know who the real whingers are? I think you'll find that
very few residents are happy at being part of sund*****d.
I see you're on about the tax payers again.
> Do you think if Geordies were asked to contribute half the cash to build a
> shopping centre or Metro in, say, Middlesbrough, they'd be quite happy to do
> so? Bear in mind that you would really need to imagine that your city was
> lacking in basic facilities like Sunderland, and you're watching another
> city get those very facilities at the expense of your own place, sound fair
> to you? Answer honestly please, it would be nice to get a straight and
> honest answer from a Geordie on this matter.
Do you really think that the only people who contribute to Middlesbrough
are living in Middlesbrough?
So you only want an answer that agrees with you, is that how it becomes
straight and honest?
Mick
Good god, there hasn't been a place called "Tyne and Wear" for years!
And there hasn't been a borough of Sunderland since 92, when we became
a city, iirc......
---
Mike Garry
Mick
> In article <e5be73bc.03052...@posting.google.com>, mickg24
> @hotmail.com says...
> > snip
> >
> > You are obviously not a tax payer on Wearside, or you would not have
> > said that.
>
> And where does the taxes from the people of Washington go? It goes to
> the mackems so they can build stupid fountains on roundabouts. Then
> plant pot.
Washington is, and always has been, on Wearside. Washington, like
Sunderland and other parts of Wearside, has been desperatly
under-funded for years.
Lets bring up the fountain again, shall we? That is what happens when
the people of the NorthEast (not just Sunderland) vote for anything in
a red rosette, every time. You could also have mentioned the red
bricks of a few years ago too. So what? Every council has a daft idea
every decade or so...
Oh, and if you are born in Washington, you are a Mackem.
>
> Do you think the majority of Washington tax payers went to see the money
> going to sund*****d? Simple answer, no.
Did I say Sunderland? I was using Sunderland as an example, I was
talking about Wearside. And I hate to rain on your parade, but
Washington *is* in Sunderland.
>
> > Its not about jealousy, its about anger. We paid our share for the
> > upkeep of the old and the building of the new in Newcastle, and we got
> > fuck all. We paid our share for the Metro, we got a poor shambolic
> > extension years later.
>
> You asked for the Metro and got it, is it paying it's way? No, because
> the people who asked for it didn't want it.
No, you are off the mark again. The people of Sunderland wanted a
comprehensive rail system, just like Newcastle have. We got a
piss-poor extension that was always going to be underused, as it is
only useful for people in South Hylton and Pallion.
>
> The green eyes at work again.
Green eyes? Or fairness? You decide.
>
> > We paid our share for the shopping centre in
> > Newcastle (whats its name again? The one off Northumberland Street),
> > and then it was sold and we did not get a penny.
> >
> > Then, when it was Sunderlands "turn" Tyne and Wear was abolished.
> > Strange timing that.
>
> They should have only abolished wear.
Including Washington then?
>
> > But wait, there is more. Sir John Hall. Took our basketball and
> > Durhams ice hockey teams, to try and build his amazingly self-centred
> > "Sporting Club Newcastle". Until it collapsed. Not enough money in
> > these smaller sports (even though Durham Wasps had been incredibly
> > succesfull).
>
> Sir John is a private individual who can do what he wants with his
> money, just like you.
Apart from when he is a member of the lottery commision?
>
> > But then there is the Lottery, surely that will give us a fair deal?
> > What does Sunderland need? Another bridge, so we applied for lottery
> > funding for the millenium, only to be told we didn't need one really,
> > that all those people trying to get across the river after a football
> > match must me a mirage. So instead, Newcastle get it, even though it
> > was hardly necessary. To rub salt in, they made it building of the
> > year, and got a famous Mackem on tv to talk about it. And who was head
> > of the lottery commision at the time the bridge decision was made? Sir
> > John Hall.
>
> A football match. And how often would that be used? You could try
> building a toll bridge with private funds for match day. No you had
> better not or you would have to give free tickets away.
>
And how many people use the new bridge in Newcastle?!? Hardly any. Was
it needed? No.
> You could always apply to the lottery again and remind them that you'll
> have 23 home league games this coming season instead of only 19 iin teh
> premiership.
Can we talk about this subject without mentioning football? You
pathetic little man.
>
> Maybe the clubs going to fund the bridge, that's probably why they've
> asked the players to take a drop in wages. I never thought of that at
> first, silly me.
>
> > So excuse us if we do not share your bid for city of Culture. I know
> > there is some hidden adgenda to make Newcastle and Gateshead one city
> > (just like Budapest, now, I wonder which will be Bude and which will
> > be Pest). Some of us want to know when half of your taxes are going to
> > pay for our city, which is after all, the largest city in the North
> > East. And possibly one of the most run-down. One Theatre, no cinemas,
> > one ancient bowling alley, one museam, one (?) art gallery, one glass
> > centre, and errr, thats it.
>
> Do you not think it's run down because that's the way the inhabitants
> have made it?
Its run down, as most of our taxes went to fund the city of "culture".
Do you understand simple economics? Or have you ran out of fingers?
>
> A glass centre with something in common with the Metro extension and
> football club.
That's what then? The glass centre could be a good attraction, if it
had other similar institutions to support it, it is steeped in
Sunderland history. The football club has the best football ground in
Britain (source: Total Football magazine, for one), but is going
through a bad period (Again).
The metro extension is a piss-poor after-thought from a Newcastle
controlled business. Spot the weak link?
>
> You've got an airport and Nissan, my mistake you've got neither because
> they are in Washington.
Shows what you know. The airport at Washington has been shut for how
long?
And talking of which, who paid for Newcastle Airport (which I believe
is not in Newcastle either?)
>
> By the way, I think it's time the air show was moved to Whitley Bay, it
> would be much better and get more visitors.
>
Yes, as obvioulsy it being the biggest free event in the country is
such a bad job.
> > Oh, and if you do win, more joy for Sunderland, as we will be footing
> > half the police bill, as we still share Northumbria Police (good name
> > eh?). Please, please, put us in County Durham, I'd rather share with
> > the knuckleheads of Darlo......
>
> I'm sure Darlington would love that to happen.
---
Mike Garry
Mick
All we ask for is you either provide us with the funding we provided
for you, or you acknowledge who built your wonderful city of
"culture".
My vote goes to Oxford, as I used to live there, and it knows a lot
more about culture than Newcastle ever will.
---
Mike Garry
Dimitrios
>"DoctorMick" <Docto...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
>news:<baq2vr$16p$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>...
>> "Wasitchu" <dan_the...@yahoo.som> wrote in message
>> news:bap8q6$t66$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
>> > Last time I checked, Washington was in Tyne & Wear
>> >
>>
>> It is in the borough of Sunderland, same as places like Springwell etc.
>
>Good god, there hasn't been a place called "Tyne and Wear" for years!
>
What's it called now, then?
--
Dimitrios
Chris F
Tyne & Division One
Cyril The Squirrel
> >And where does the taxes from the people of Washington go? It goes to
> >the mackems so they can build stupid fountains on roundabouts. Then
> >plant pot.
> Washington is, and always has been, on Wearside. Washington, like
> Sunderland and other parts of Wearside, has been desperatly
> under-funded for years.
I never said it wasn't part of wearside.
> Lets bring up the fountain again, shall we? That is what happens when
> the people of the NorthEast (not just Sunderland) vote for anything in
> a red rosette, every time. You could also have mentioned the red
> bricks of a few years ago too. So what? Every council has a daft idea
> every decade or so...
Who would do a better job?
> Oh, and if you are born in Washington, you are a Mackem.
Why is somebody who is born in Washington a mackem? What makes somebody
a mackem?
> >
> > Do you think the majority of Washington tax payers went to see the money
> > going to sund*****d? Simple answer, no.
> Did I say Sunderland? I was using Sunderland as an example, I was
> talking about Wearside. And I hate to rain on your parade, but
> Washington *is* in Sunderland.
You asked if you'd said sund*****d? Then said you were using it as an
example, so you know what you said. Well why didn't you say wearside in
the first place. I know I'm only nit picking but you made it look as if
sund*****d had paid to build Washington, now you've expanded to
wearside, will it be England next then Britain.
> snip
> >
> > You asked for the Metro and got it, is it paying it's way? No, because
> > the people who asked for it didn't want it.
> No, you are off the mark again. The people of Sunderland wanted a
> comprehensive rail system, just like Newcastle have. We got a
> piss-poor extension that was always going to be underused, as it is
> only useful for people in South Hylton and Pallion.
A comprehensive rail system for what reason? sund*****d has no call for
a comprehensive rail system. Think along these lines, supply & demand.
> >
> > The green eyes at work again.
> Green eyes? Or fairness? You decide.
Thanks, green eyes.
> snip
> > They should have only abolished wear.
> Including Washington then?
No.
> snip
> >
> > Sir John is a private individual who can do what he wants with his
> > money, just like you.
> Apart from when he is a member of the lottery commision?
So when he's a member of the lottery commission he can't spend his
personal money how he sees fit? Or, did the lottery money buy him
Durham Wasps etc?
> > snip
> >
> > A football match. And how often would that be used? You could try
> > building a toll bridge with private funds for match day. No you had
> > better not or you would have to give free tickets away.
> >
> And how many people use the new bridge in Newcastle?!? Hardly any. Was
> it needed? No.
No idea but I'd put money on it that it's more than a small percentage
of 40 odd thousand 19 times a year.
> > You could always apply to the lottery again and remind them that you'll
> > have 23 home league games this coming season instead of only 19 iin teh
> > premiership.
> Can we talk about this subject without mentioning football? You
> pathetic little man.
I was only trying to help your case for the new bridge you're after, I
thought I might have discovered something you hadn't. More games means
more people to cross the bridge.
> snip
>
> > Do you not think it's run down because that's the way the inhabitants
> > have made it?
> Its run down, as most of our taxes went to fund the city of "culture".
> Do you understand simple economics? Or have you ran out of fingers?
I do understand economics, that's why I wouldn't suggest a multi-million
pound bridge to allow people to take a short cut 19 times a year.
> >
> > A glass centre with something in common with the Metro extension and
> > football club.
> That's what then? The glass centre could be a good attraction, if it
> had other similar institutions to support it, it is steeped in
> Sunderland history. The football club has the best football ground in
> Britain (source: Total Football magazine, for one), but is going
> through a bad period (Again).
See your comments about economics, they are all losing money.
> The metro extension is a piss-poor after-thought from a Newcastle
> controlled business. Spot the weak link?
I've spotted the weak link, it's the location of them all. You have no
need for anything more than you've got.
> >
> > You've got an airport and Nissan, my mistake you've got neither because
> > they are in Washington.
> Shows what you know. The airport at Washington has been shut for how
> long?
Which airport?
> And talking of which, who paid for Newcastle Airport (which I believe
> is not in Newcastle either?)
Tyneside paid for it.
> >
> > By the way, I think it's time the air show was moved to Whitley Bay, it
> > would be much better and get more visitors.
>
> Yes, as obvioulsy it being the biggest free event in the country is
> such a bad job.
I didn't say it was bad. It just shows that sund*****d can do things
which are a success as long as money isn't required.
> snip
Cyril The Squirrel
> >Good god, there hasn't been a place called "Tyne and Wear" for years!
> >
>
> What's it called now, then?
>
>
>
longer a county.
I think that's right.
Cyril The Squirrel
> for you, or you acknowledge who built your wonderful city of
> "culture".
At least you are big enough to acknowledge our city is wonderful.
>
> My vote goes to Oxford, as I used to live there, and it knows a lot
> more about culture than Newcastle ever will.
Excellent.
Mick
> In article <baqf84$7nk$1...@hercules.btinternet.com>, som...@somewhere.com
> says...
> > snip
> >
> > Ah yes, that's a very good example. The Romans were a foreign invading force
> > who left our shores hundreds of years ago. Washington was a small existing
> > village which was turned into a massive modern dwelling area at the expense
> > of Sunderland taxpayers. Yes yes, I can see the similarities....
>
> At the expense of who?
>
> Washington was and still is a small village it's also a town. A town
> built up around quite a few little villages, so what?
And where did the money come from? Was it the citizens of those small
villages?
>
> > It's quite simple, if Sunderland taxpayer's money wasn't spent on Washington
> > then all these anti-Sunderland residents wouldn't have a home there in the
> > first place. The new town has probably had quite a disproportionate amount
> > of taxpayers money spent on it, but that is OK because it's part of
> > Sunderland. The real whingers aren't Sunderland folk, they're the 'Geordies'
> > living in Washington and moaning about Sunderland all the time.
>
> How do you know who the real whingers are? I think you'll find that
> very few residents are happy at being part of sund*****d.
Really? And you know this for a fact do you? Or are you only talking
about your friends and colleagues, which is hardly a fair sample of
the population at large.
>
> I see you're on about the tax payers again.
Well, that is the point of this entire thread.
>
> > Do you think if Geordies were asked to contribute half the cash to build a
> > shopping centre or Metro in, say, Middlesbrough, they'd be quite happy to do
> > so? Bear in mind that you would really need to imagine that your city was
> > lacking in basic facilities like Sunderland, and you're watching another
> > city get those very facilities at the expense of your own place, sound fair
> > to you? Answer honestly please, it would be nice to get a straight and
> > honest answer from a Geordie on this matter.
>
> Do you really think that the only people who contribute to Middlesbrough
> are living in Middlesbrough?
No, but I believe you are missing the point, again.
>
> So you only want an answer that agrees with you, is that how it becomes
> straight and honest?
At which stage was it not straight and honest? We were talking about
taxpayers, you brought football into it. For once, can we leave
football out of this?
Now, imagine very hard, that you lived in Newcastle. Now image that
city had had hardly any investment for decades, and lacked basic
amneties. Now imagine it was the biggest city in the north, and its
taxes were being used to build up a neighbouring town/city instead. In
trying to keep away from football, Dave used Middlesbrough instead of
Sunderland.
Now, answer the question, please.
---
Mike Garry
DoctorMick
Boom Boom!
--
DoctorMick
Chris F
well y'kna, you can only take so much boring bickering about fuckin
taxes :)
Cyril The Squirrel
> And where did the money come from? Was it the citizens of those small
> villages?
No, it will have came from all tax payers.
> snip
> Really? And you know this for a fact do you? Or are you only talking
> about your friends and colleagues, which is hardly a fair sample of
> the population at large.
No I don't know it for fact, I know it from friends and colleagues who
are not all Geordies.
Do you have any facts to counter what I'm saying?
> Well, that is the point of this entire thread.
No, the point of the entire thread was about Newcastle trying for the
title Capital Of Culture 2008.
> snip
> No, but I believe you are missing the point, again.
Don't get me wrong, I understand what you are saying but it isn't as if
Newcastle is the only place where this thing happens. Who is bidding
for the Olympics and where will the money come from? Who got the Dome?
Where is the national football stadium going?
I mentioned Washington because sund*****d is getting more money out of
it than it's putting back in. Don't go on again about where the money
came from to pay for it because it will have come from all of us.
> snip
> At which stage was it not straight and honest? We were talking about
> taxpayers, you brought football into it. For once, can we leave
> football out of this?
I brought football into it for 2 reasons, the first was because it's not
making money which is the same for the glass centre and metro link. The
second was a piss take about the bridge you wanted for getting to the
match. I was trying to point out that 19 matches isn't really a good
enough reason for the bridge.
> Now, imagine very hard, that you lived in Newcastle. Now image that
> city had had hardly any investment for decades, and lacked basic
> amneties. Now imagine it was the biggest city in the north, and its
> taxes were being used to build up a neighbouring town/city instead. In
> trying to keep away from football, Dave used Middlesbrough instead of
> Sunderland.
> Now, answer the question, please.
What makes it the biggest city?
I will answer that, what is happening happens all over and I wouldn't
say for one minute that it was right, unless I'm taking the piss out of
you, don't take it personally.
I will also say that you shouldn't really take your attitude towards
Newcastle trying for the title Capital Of Culture 2008. It might be
better for sund*****d if people like you were more positive towards your
city rather than being negative towards Newcastle.
I think mackems are seen as being very negative and it doesn't help them
at all. I know we take the piss out of each other and long may it
continue.
Think positive, go on try hard.
somebody
> What a pity an intelligent, well thought out post by Mick should attract a
> complete neatherthal with no semblance of an intelligent rebuttal. And in
> case you hadn't realised, Washington is in, wait for it, Sunderland.
> Sunderland taxpayers money built Washington, I don't think Washington has
> anything to grumble about.
>
> Dave
No you Clown! Durham County Council built Washington in the 1960's
So it was the tax payers of County Durham (pre '74) paid for Washington, not
just Sunderland!!
Dave D
> In article <baqf84$7nk$1...@hercules.btinternet.com>, som...@somewhere.com
> says...
> > snip
> >
> > Ah yes, that's a very good example. The Romans were a foreign invading
force
> > who left our shores hundreds of years ago. Washington was a small
existing
> > village which was turned into a massive modern dwelling area at the
expense
> > of Sunderland taxpayers. Yes yes, I can see the similarities....
>
> At the expense of who?
>
Sunderland taxpayers. Why are you asking? I already said. If you have a
different take on things then FFS spell it out. Up to now, I don't have a
clue what your view on the topic is, because you haven't said.
> Washington was and still is a small village it's also a town. A town
> built up around quite a few little villages, so what?
>
It was a few small decrepit villages and now houses tens of thousands of
people and has its own shopping centre and amenities. I take it you haven't
been there for 20 odd years or so. Like I said, if Sunderland council hadn't
rebuilt it then the poor Washington taxpayers wouldn't have a house there,
or a shopping centre, or jobs.
> > It's quite simple, if Sunderland taxpayer's money wasn't spent on
Washington
> > then all these anti-Sunderland residents wouldn't have a home there in
the
> > first place. The new town has probably had quite a disproportionate
amount
> > of taxpayers money spent on it, but that is OK because it's part of
> > Sunderland. The real whingers aren't Sunderland folk, they're the
'Geordies'
> > living in Washington and moaning about Sunderland all the time.
>
> How do you know who the real whingers are? I think you'll find that
> very few residents are happy at being part of sund*****d.
>
Have you taken a poll to arrive at that bullshit conclusion or is it bitter
anti-Sunderland twaddle? The only anti-Sunderland whinging I frequently
encounter from Washington residents is from 'Washington Geordies' on usenet,
I don't come across it day to day, and I spend quite a lot of time in
Washington. Most Washington residents, IIRC, were moved in from Sunderland
and I imagine likely consider themselves Mackems.
> I see you're on about the tax payers again.
>
That was the entire point of the topic, did you miss it?
> > Do you think if Geordies were asked to contribute half the cash to build
a
> > shopping centre or Metro in, say, Middlesbrough, they'd be quite happy
to do
> > so? Bear in mind that you would really need to imagine that your city
was
> > lacking in basic facilities like Sunderland, and you're watching another
> > city get those very facilities at the expense of your own place, sound
fair
> > to you? Answer honestly please, it would be nice to get a straight and
> > honest answer from a Geordie on this matter.
>
> Do you really think that the only people who contribute to Middlesbrough
> are living in Middlesbrough?
>
You're answering a question with a question.
Of course not, but we aren't talking about a tiny fraction of national
taxation here, we are talking about Sunderland people paying half towards
Newcastle's amenities.Obviously you can't or won't acknowledge the key
difference.
> So you only want an answer that agrees with you, is that how it becomes
> straight and honest?
You're answering a question with a question -again. And you're jumping to
conclusions.
I am asking you to tell me honestly if you would be happy, and I'll believe
you, but it doesn't mean I'd agree.
You don't seem able to provide a counter argument or state facts to
contradict Mick's OP. I would really like to hear your opinion and
justification if you care to post it, but if not I'm sure we've both got
better things to do than this ;-)
Go on, tell us how you think Sunderland taxes paying for Newcastle
amenities is fair and just?
Dave
Dave D
> In article <baovev$ggi$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>, som...@somewhere.com
> says...
> > snip
> >
> > What a pity an intelligent, well thought out post by Mick should attract
a
> > complete neatherthal with no semblance of an intelligent rebuttal. And
in
> > case you hadn't realised, Washington is in, wait for it, Sunderland.
> > Sunderland taxpayers money built Washington, I don't think Washington
has
> > anything to grumble about.
> >
> > Dave
>
> The intelligent post just looked like a moaning rant to me.
>
Maybe so, but at least it was backed up by facts. He has a bloody good right
to moan, but of course as the situation very much favours Newcastle then
obviously you're delighted.
> Washington became part of sund*****d in the last 10 years or so.
>
Really?
> As for your tax payers paying for it, prove it. I think you'll find
> that it was built with government money (Washington development
> corporation) so all of us paid for it, not just sund*****d tax payers.
Do you know how juvenile you look by puttings asterisks in Sunderland? That
isn't even worthy of a spotty teenager, you need to grow up. Sunderland
largely funded and still funds Washington, ring the civic centre and ask
them.
Dave
Dave D
> > > Sir John is a private individual who can do what he wants with his
> > > money, just like you.
>
> > Apart from when he is a member of the lottery commision?
>
> So when he's a member of the lottery commission he can't spend his
> personal money how he sees fit? Or, did the lottery money buy him
> Durham Wasps etc?
>
Oh boy, if ever there were awards handed out for missing the point... Here's
some simple words to give you a clue: Hall, lottery, cash, bridge,
Sunderland, denied.
Geddit now?
Dave
Dave D
"Cyril The Squirrel" <why_are_you@this_pigsty.com> wrote in message
> > And talking of which, who paid for Newcastle Airport (which I believe
> > is not in Newcastle either?)
>
> Tyneside paid for it.
>
ROFL... of course they did....
> > >
> > > By the way, I think it's time the air show was moved to Whitley Bay,
it
> > > would be much better and get more visitors.
> >
>
> > Yes, as obvioulsy it being the biggest free event in the country is
> > such a bad job.
>
> I didn't say it was bad.
You said Whitley Bay could do a better job, what do you think could be
improved, or is it just anti-Sunderland bias again?
>It just shows that sund*****d can do things
> which are a success as long as money isn't required.
>
Yeah, that's because we haven't got any money, it all went to build
Newcastle you see.
Dave
Dave D
"somebody" <vo...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bar395$8ne$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
So I'm a clown, so what ;-)
Which parts of Washington are you meaning? There's an awful lot of housing
there built post -197X. I'm not saying every penny that ever went into
Washington came through Sunderland City Council, I'm saying that Washington
has had more money going into it than coming out. As it is now part of
Sunderland then obviously we foot the bill.
Dave
Neil
> towards your city rather than being negative towards Newcastle.
Written by someone who can't even bring himself to write SUNDERLAND!!
Cyril The Squirrel
> > > Ah yes, that's a very good example. The Romans were a foreign invading
> force
> > > who left our shores hundreds of years ago. Washington was a small
> existing
> > > village which was turned into a massive modern dwelling area at the
> expense
> > > of Sunderland taxpayers. Yes yes, I can see the similarities....
> >
> > At the expense of who?
> >
>
> Sunderland taxpayers. Why are you asking? I already said. If you have a
> different take on things then FFS spell it out. Up to now, I don't have a
> clue what your view on the topic is, because you haven't said.
I've already said that it came from the British tax payer, not only the
sund*****d tax payer. Understand, British tax payer, is that spelled
out enough for you?
Will the penny now drop?
> > Washington was and still is a small village it's also a town. A town
> > built up around quite a few little villages, so what?
> >
>
> It was a few small decrepit villages and now houses tens of thousands of
> people and has its own shopping centre and amenities. I take it you haven't
> been there for 20 odd years or so. Like I said, if Sunderland council hadn't
> rebuilt it then the poor Washington taxpayers wouldn't have a house there,
> or a shopping centre, or jobs.
Who rebuilt Washington?
Get your facts right, I'll also spell this one out, Washington
Development Corporation built it and it was bulit with British tax
payers money.
> > > It's quite simple, if Sunderland taxpayer's money wasn't spent on
> Washington
> > > then all these anti-Sunderland residents wouldn't have a home there in
> the
> > > first place. The new town has probably had quite a disproportionate
> amount
> > > of taxpayers money spent on it, but that is OK because it's part of
> > > Sunderland. The real whingers aren't Sunderland folk, they're the
> 'Geordies'
> > > living in Washington and moaning about Sunderland all the time.
> >
> > How do you know who the real whingers are? I think you'll find that
> > very few residents are happy at being part of sund*****d.
> >
>
> Have you taken a poll to arrive at that bullshit conclusion or is it bitter
> anti-Sunderland twaddle? The only anti-Sunderland whinging I frequently
> encounter from Washington residents is from 'Washington Geordies' on usenet,
> I don't come across it day to day, and I spend quite a lot of time in
> Washington. Most Washington residents, IIRC, were moved in from Sunderland
> and I imagine likely consider themselves Mackems.
I have not taken a poll on it but having lived in the place for over 20
years I think I know how people feel on the matter.
Most of the mackems who were moved into Washington were moved into
Sulgrave, Blackfell and Barmston. Those three villages were turned into
dumps in no time at all. Blackfell has since had most of the houses
knocked down because of it and the flats in Sulgrave has been sold to
private buyers.
I'm not sure most residents were from sund*****d, the worst certainly
were.
> > I see you're on about the tax payers again.
> >
>
> That was the entire point of the topic, did you miss it?
Go back to the beginning of the thread, the topic was about, no I'll let
you work it out from the subject if you can manage that.
>
> > > Do you think if Geordies were asked to contribute half the cash to build
> a
> > > shopping centre or Metro in, say, Middlesbrough, they'd be quite happy
> to do
> > > so? Bear in mind that you would really need to imagine that your city
> was
> > > lacking in basic facilities like Sunderland, and you're watching another
> > > city get those very facilities at the expense of your own place, sound
> fair
> > > to you? Answer honestly please, it would be nice to get a straight and
> > > honest answer from a Geordie on this matter.
> >
> > Do you really think that the only people who contribute to Middlesbrough
> > are living in Middlesbrough?
> >
>
>
> You're answering a question with a question.
I didn't see what boro had to do with it but they'll get money from
people who don't live in boro, I wanted to know if he understood that.
If he did then why did he bring it up?
> Of course not, but we aren't talking about a tiny fraction of national
> taxation here, we are talking about Sunderland people paying half towards
> Newcastle's amenities.Obviously you can't or won't acknowledge the key
> difference.
Where does the money for the air show come from? Where does the money
to police that come from?
It's not all one sided, I guess you'll not be campaigning to get that
stopped.
Everybody who lived in Tyne & wear contributed to it, sund*****d didn't
pay half.
You are starting to look really stupid.
> > So you only want an answer that agrees with you, is that how it becomes
> > straight and honest?
>
> You're answering a question with a question -again. And you're jumping to
> conclusions.
Why should I change my opinion to suit his just because he wants me to?
Your argument is bullshit. As far as I'm concerned the argument isn't
won, it goes both ways.
> I am asking you to tell me honestly if you would be happy, and I'll believe
> you, but it doesn't mean I'd agree.
We all pay taxes and have no say where they go, it's a fact of life in
this country and I've learned to accept it without developing a chip on
my shoulder.
> You don't seem able to provide a counter argument or state facts to
> contradict Mick's OP. I would really like to hear your opinion and
> justification if you care to post it, but if not I'm sure we've both got
> better things to do than this ;-)
His are only opinions and not facts so why should I spend time looking
for proof. He can go and try to find proof to justify his opinions, he
will not be able to because what he's saying is wrong.
> Go on, tell us how you think Sunderland taxes paying for Newcastle
> amenities is fair and just?
That's life. My taxes go to the British government who also pay money
to the EEC, they gave sund*****d how much towards the SOS?
What you are saying is like me saying I'm healthy so why should I pay in
to the NHS, I don't have a say in the matter.
As somebody has already pointed out this subject is boring, I'll leave
it to you and your mate to prove me wrong by producing facts.
Cyril The Squirrel
>
> > Washington became part of sund*****d in the last 10 years or so.
> >
>
> Really?
check http://www.sunderlandtoday.co.uk/Custom_pages/CustomPage.asp?Page=
1218
Here's a quote:
Foster has seen several re-organisations of local government – in 1967,
the old rural district including the villages of Ryhope, Silksworth,
Castletown and South Hylton, became part of Sunderland and in 1974,
Hetton and Houghton joined. There was the formation of Washington New
Town and then in its turn, this became part of Sunderland.
Note where it says: There was the formation of Washington New Town and
then in its turn, this became part of Sunderland.
Does this tell you something?
>
> > As for your tax payers paying for it, prove it. I think you'll find
> > that it was built with government money (Washington development
> > corporation) so all of us paid for it, not just sund*****d tax payers.
>
> Do you know how juvenile you look by puttings asterisks in Sunderland? That
> isn't even worthy of a spotty teenager, you need to grow up. Sunderland
> largely funded and still funds Washington, ring the civic centre and ask
> them.
Is th*t a bite?
As for asking the civic centre to explain where the council tax goes
they say they can't explain it because I've asked before. I asked them
how much council tax was gathered in Washington per head and how much
was spent per head.
Do you know the answer?
Cyril The Squirrel
>
> You said Whitley Bay could do a better job, what do you think could be
> improved, or is it just anti-Sunderland bias again?
>
> >It just shows that sund*****d can do things
> > which are a success as long as money isn't required.
> >
>
> Yeah, that's because we haven't got any money, it all went to build
> Newcastle you see.
I was trying to get a bite, I did.
Cyril The Squirrel
>
> So I'm a clown, so what ;-)
> Which parts of Washington are you meaning? There's an awful lot of housing
> there built post -197X. I'm not saying every penny that ever went into
> Washington came through Sunderland City Council, I'm saying that Washington
> has had more money going into it than coming out. As it is now part of
> Sunderland then obviously we foot the bill.
>
> Dave
Not a single council house has been built since you got your hands on it
so where is all of the money going? Oh yes, they've changed a few road
signs.
By the way Washington has 54% of your cities industrial land, and it
doesn't pay for itself does it not?
Cyril The Squirrel
m...@breathe.com says...
> > It might be better for sund*****d if people like you were more positive
> > towards your city rather than being negative towards Newcastle.
>
> Written by someone who can't even bring himself to write SUNDERLAND!!
>
>
>
Mick
But seeing as Sunderlands population is the largest in County Durham
by some way (at the moment, Sunderland would account for over a third
of the total population, but obviously that would be a lot different
back in 1964 when Washington became a New Town. However, a lot of the
building did not start until well into the 70's and indeed 80's, so
this figure is not as far out as it may first appear), you could argue
that in fact the population of Sunderland paid more towards the
building of Washington than anyone else.
Now anyway, enough of this sidetrack, back to the original
argument....
---
Mike Garry
Mick
> > snip
> > >And where does the taxes from the people of Washington go? It goes to
> > >the mackems so they can build stupid fountains on roundabouts. Then
> > >when the water blows onto the road the £100,000 fountain becomes a big
> > >plant pot.
>
> > Washington is, and always has been, on Wearside. Washington, like
> > Sunderland and other parts of Wearside, has been desperatly
> > under-funded for years.
>
> I never said it wasn't part of wearside.
>
> > Lets bring up the fountain again, shall we? That is what happens when
> > the people of the NorthEast (not just Sunderland) vote for anything in
> > a red rosette, every time. You could also have mentioned the red
> > bricks of a few years ago too. So what? Every council has a daft idea
> > every decade or so...
>
> Who would do a better job?
Frankly, any of us on here!
>
> > Oh, and if you are born in Washington, you are a Mackem.
>
> Why is somebody who is born in Washington a mackem? What makes somebody
> a mackem?
A Mackem is somebody who worked, or lived, in the city of Sunderland
when the Wear was the biggest ship-building river in the world, that
is where the term originates from. Now, as the majority of those ship
builders came from Sunderland and the immediate area, I guess the term
means anyone from Wearside, down to North Durham.
>
> > >
> > > Do you think the majority of Washington tax payers went to see the money
> > > going to sund*****d? Simple answer, no.
>
> > Did I say Sunderland? I was using Sunderland as an example, I was
> > talking about Wearside. And I hate to rain on your parade, but
> > Washington *is* in Sunderland.
>
> You asked if you'd said sund*****d? Then said you were using it as an
> example, so you know what you said. Well why didn't you say wearside in
> the first place. I know I'm only nit picking but you made it look as if
> sund*****d had paid to build Washington, now you've expanded to
> wearside, will it be England next then Britain.
Lets just remind you what I said at the start of my first post:
"You are obviously not a tax payer on Wearside, or you would not have
said that.
Its not about jealousy, its about anger. We paid our share for the
upkeep of the old and the building of the new in Newcastle, and we got
fuck all. We paid our share for the Metro, we got a poor shambolic
extension years later. We paid our share for the shopping centre in
Newcastle (whats its name again? The one off Northumberland Street),
and then it was sold and we did not get a penny.
Then, when it was Sunderlands "turn" Tyne and Wear was abolished.
Strange timing that."
Did you notice how I was talking about Wearsire?
>
> > snip
> > >
> > > You asked for the Metro and got it, is it paying it's way? No, because
> > > the people who asked for it didn't want it.
>
> > No, you are off the mark again. The people of Sunderland wanted a
> > comprehensive rail system, just like Newcastle have. We got a
> > piss-poor extension that was always going to be underused, as it is
> > only useful for people in South Hylton and Pallion.
>
> A comprehensive rail system for what reason? sund*****d has no call for
> a comprehensive rail system. Think along these lines, supply & demand.
And Newcastle does? How does this thinking work then, oh econimcal
genius?
There can be no demand, if there is no supply (just ask BT, and the
broadband fiasco). Where was the demand in Newcastle when it was being
built?
>
> > >
> > > The green eyes at work again.
>
> > Green eyes? Or fairness? You decide.
>
> Thanks, green eyes.
Actually, I do have green eyes. How did you know?
>
> > snip
> > > They should have only abolished wear.
>
> > Including Washington then?
>
> No.
Even though Washington is Wearside, and city of Sunderland.
Interesting thought.
>
> > snip
> > >
> > > Sir John is a private individual who can do what he wants with his
> > > money, just like you.
>
> > Apart from when he is a member of the lottery commision?
>
> So when he's a member of the lottery commission he can't spend his
> personal money how he sees fit? Or, did the lottery money buy him
> Durham Wasps etc?
Ahh, you see there were two points there, I believe you missed them.
The Hall mega-dream was mentioned first, to give some groundwork for
the paragraph on the lottery bridge disgrace. I'm sorry I didn't make
it clearer, just I didnt think I needed to.....
>
> > > snip
> > >
> > > A football match. And how often would that be used? You could try
> > > building a toll bridge with private funds for match day. No you had
> > > better not or you would have to give free tickets away.
> > >
>
> > And how many people use the new bridge in Newcastle?!? Hardly any. Was
> > it needed? No.
>
> No idea but I'd put money on it that it's more than a small percentage
> of 40 odd thousand 19 times a year.
You dont attend the SoL do you? That "small percentage" is enough to
close the entire bridge to traffic.
Now, this is just a guess, but I reckon more people would use that
bridge at the end of a football game at the SoL, than use it in a week
across the Tyne. And thats before you add the usual week "traffic".
>
> > > You could always apply to the lottery again and remind them that you'll
> > > have 23 home league games this coming season instead of only 19 iin teh
> > > premiership.
>
> > Can we talk about this subject without mentioning football? You
> > pathetic little man.
>
> I was only trying to help your case for the new bridge you're after, I
> thought I might have discovered something you hadn't. More games means
> more people to cross the bridge.
>
Oh sorry, and theres me thinking it was a pathetic dig.
My apologies.
> > snip
> >
> > > Do you not think it's run down because that's the way the inhabitants
> > > have made it?
>
> > Its run down, as most of our taxes went to fund the city of "culture".
> > Do you understand simple economics? Or have you ran out of fingers?
>
> I do understand economics, that's why I wouldn't suggest a multi-million
> pound bridge to allow people to take a short cut 19 times a year.
>
As opposed to a multi-pound bridge where there is no demand at all?
Did they all get sick of using the swing bridge? Or the Tyne Bridge?
> > >
> > > A glass centre with something in common with the Metro extension and
> > > football club.
>
> > That's what then? The glass centre could be a good attraction, if it
> > had other similar institutions to support it, it is steeped in
> > Sunderland history. The football club has the best football ground in
> > Britain (source: Total Football magazine, for one), but is going
> > through a bad period (Again).
>
> See your comments about economics, they are all losing money.
See my comment about the Glass centre. Quote: "The glass centre could
be a good attraction, if it had other similar institutions to support
it"
The SoL, actually makes a profit. It was only the boards strange
decsion to give Mr Reid about £15m to spend on crap 6 weeks before
sacking him that has put our (previoulsy well run) club in the mire.
>
> > The metro extension is a piss-poor after-thought from a Newcastle
> > controlled business. Spot the weak link?
>
> I've spotted the weak link, it's the location of them all. You have no
> need for anything more than you've got.
Theres that supply and demand argument again.
By the same logic, I take it Sunderland does not need a cinema? A good
art gallery?
The weak link is this, of the 3 things mentioned:
The SoL is award winning and makes a profit = Sunderland built.
The Glass centre is also award winning, and stands on an award winning
university site, but needs other centres of culture around it to
encourage visitors = Sunderland built.
The metro is shit, a pathetic afterthought to try and pacifiy the
natives (and some would say a great way to get the shopping public to
go to Newcastle) = Newcastle built.
>
> > >
> > > You've got an airport and Nissan, my mistake you've got neither because
> > > they are in Washington.
>
> > Shows what you know. The airport at Washington has been shut for how
> > long?
>
> Which airport?
So you know the area well then?
>
> > And talking of which, who paid for Newcastle Airport (which I believe
> > is not in Newcastle either?)
>
> Tyneside paid for it.
Pardon?
>
> > >
> > > By the way, I think it's time the air show was moved to Whitley Bay, it
> > > would be much better and get more visitors.
> >
>
> > Yes, as obvioulsy it being the biggest free event in the country is
> > such a bad job.
>
> I didn't say it was bad. It just shows that sund*****d can do things
> which are a success as long as money isn't required.
>
Or maybe it shows that people are willing to come to Sunderland
providing there is something for them to come for. Do you really think
all those visitors would really go to Newcastle if it wasnt for the
theatres, the art gallerys, the cinemas, eldon square, the arena, etc?
I hate to break it to you, but people from around the country do not,
by and large, visit Newcastle for its "we're great we are, best fans
in the world, our city is the best, Geordie Nation" attitude. Most
people that I have spoken to think that attitude is awful, nearly as
bad as the cockneys attitude to the "sarf".
But of course, you live in Washington, which has less reason to visit
than Sunderland itself, and I have family there......
---
Mike Garry
Mick
> In article <e5be73bc.03052...@posting.google.com>, mickg24
> @hotmail.com says...
> > snip
> >
> > All we ask for is you either provide us with the funding we provided
> > for you, or you acknowledge who built your wonderful city of
> > "culture".
>
> At least you are big enough to acknowledge our city is wonderful.
You live in Washington!!!!
And you seem to be immune to sarcasm, how fascinating.....
>
> >
> > My vote goes to Oxford, as I used to live there, and it knows a lot
> > more about culture than Newcastle ever will.
>
> Excellent.
It is actually. Have you ever sat in the Botanical gardens on a spring day?
---
Mike Garry
Mick
That will be the same Post Office that decided for no good reason to
shut down the Sunderland sorting office, move it to Gateshead and call
us all "Tyneside" then?
But if you use the "Address finder" on the post office site, you will
find that "Tyne and Wear" does not exist anymore. You simply use
"Sunderland", what with us being a city.
---
Mike Garry
Cyril The Squirrel
>
> You live in Washington!!!!
Not any more, got sick of financing the mackems, just kidding.
>
> And you seem to be immune to sarcasm, how fascinating.....
I just turned it around,it's one way of reacting to it. I don't mind
sarcasm, unlike some who think it's the lowest form of wit. Sometimes
it's the best way of getting a point over, it's usually remembered.
> > >
> > > My vote goes to Oxford, as I used to live there, and it knows a lot
> > > more about culture than Newcastle ever will.
> >
> > Excellent.
>
> It is actually. Have you ever sat in the Botanical gardens on a spring day?
I must admit that doesn't register in the memory so I'd have to say no
although it does sound fascinating.
Mick
> > A glass centre with something in common with the Metro extension and
> > football club.
> >
>
>
Do you want to tell us why its a bad idea?
Sunderland has a long, proud history of glass making, so in that
respect it is a perfect place for it. And when the art department of
the university is moved to St Peters next year, this will look even
better.
Sunderland, in case you hadnt noticed, desperatly needs things of
culture, the glass centre being one. I hate to say it, but after
living in the south for 3 years, and then coming back, it is striking
how little there is to do in the north east that doesnt involve
getting off your head.
While I believe Sunderland needed more pubs (though not all the bloody
same, like they have done, how about a little variety?!?), it really,
really needs other entertainment venues. At the moment, you have the
choice (if you want to stay within Sunderland) of:
Getting drunk.
Playing snooker/pool.
Going Bowling.
Going to a very limited range of very average restaraunts.
Watching CATS at the theatre (no god, anything but that)
And, err, thats it.
How about a proper live music venue (and I dont mean buskers night in
the Ivy, or Manor Quay)?
A Cinema?
A comedy club?
Some good eatires?
A proper art gallery?
etc
etc
Surely the entertainment needs of a city the size of Sunderland are
not so one-dimensional?
---
Mike Garry
Cyril The Squirrel
>
Eat your heart out sunderland, see a can type the word.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/story.jsp?story=409684
39th doesn't look bad except for the fact that they had a tie at number
2.
Cyril The Squirrel
> shut down the Sunderland sorting office, move it to Gateshead and call
> us all "Tyneside" then?
>
> But if you use the "Address finder" on the post office site, you will
> find that "Tyne and Wear" does not exist anymore. You simply use
> "Sunderland", what with us being a city.
>
> ---
> Mike Garry
>
he comes from Tyneside.
Dave D
> > snip
> >
> > > Washington became part of sund*****d in the last 10 years or so.
> > >
> >
> > Really?
>
> check http://www.sunderlandtoday.co.uk/Custom_pages/CustomPage.asp?Page=
> 1218
>
> Here's a quote:
>
> the old rural district including the villages of Ryhope, Silksworth,
> Castletown and South Hylton, became part of Sunderland and in 1974,
> Hetton and Houghton joined. There was the formation of Washington New
> Town and then in its turn, this became part of Sunderland.
>
>
> Note where it says: There was the formation of Washington New Town and
> then in its turn, this became part of Sunderland.
>
> Does this tell you something?
>
It tells me that Washington is part of Sunderland, like I've said all along.
It also said that whatever amenities/housing is built in Washington is paid
for by Sunderland taxpayers as a whole, that means the likes of me who don't
live there. This is OK as I said, because it is part of Sunderland. I never
said, like I believe you are implying, that the whole New Town was built by
our council.
> >
> > > As for your tax payers paying for it, prove it. I think you'll find
> > > that it was built with government money (Washington development
> > > corporation) so all of us paid for it, not just sund*****d tax payers.
> >
> > Do you know how juvenile you look by puttings asterisks in Sunderland?
That
> > isn't even worthy of a spotty teenager, you need to grow up. Sunderland
> > largely funded and still funds Washington, ring the civic centre and ask
> > them.
>
> Is th*t a bite?
>
I couldn't give a toss mate, I'm just pointing it out as it isn't worthy of
an intelligent, grown person.
> As for asking the civic centre to explain where the council tax goes
> they say they can't explain it because I've asked before. I asked them
> how much council tax was gathered in Washington per head and how much
> was spent per head.
>
> Do you know the answer?
No, I don't ;-)
Dave
Dave D
> > snip
> >
> > So I'm a clown, so what ;-)
> > Which parts of Washington are you meaning? There's an awful lot of
housing
> > there built post -197X. I'm not saying every penny that ever went into
> > Washington came through Sunderland City Council, I'm saying that
Washington
> > has had more money going into it than coming out. As it is now part of
> > Sunderland then obviously we foot the bill.
> >
> > Dave
>
>
> Not a single council house has been built since you got your hands on it
> so where is all of the money going? Oh yes, they've changed a few road
> signs.
>
I said there was housing built there since the 70s, are you saying all
housing there was built before that? Who do you think maintains the vast
amount of housing there?
> By the way Washington has 54% of your cities industrial land, and it
> doesn't pay for itself does it not?
Are you implying that Washington has more than half the businesses in
Sunderland? I don't think so. If you are referring to land by area, so what?
I fail to see how that would relate to its contribution to the city. Whether
Washington has more money coming in or going out is debatable sure enough, I
think overall it likely has more going into it, but admittedly I can't prove
my POV and neither can you prove yours.
Dave
Dave D
Now reel me in ;-)
Dave
DoctorMick
news:e5be73bc.0305...@posting.google.com...
> "DoctorMick" <Docto...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:<baq2tt$8lv$1...@titan.btinternet.com>...
> > > A glass centre with something in common with the Metro extension and
> > > football club.
> > >
> >
> > It was a bad idea to put the glass centre up here!
> >
>
> Do you want to tell us why its a bad idea?
>
No
--
DoctorMick
:::Hoolllio:::
From the BBC, cities were rated on "The three indicators are ethnic
diversity, proportion of gay residents and the number of patent applications
per head."
aaargh
we know where it's going to happen.
":::Hoolllio:::" <bc...@SPAMTRAPhotpop.com> wrote in message
news:5hwAa.13228$Mu3.2...@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...