On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 09:00:06 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

God, now I'm confused! I've just been told that she was Greek! Was she
or wasn't she? I'm retracting my apology temporarily.

IIRC, she stated she/they wanted to retire to Greece (with enough
money from property developing to have the luxury lifestyle)

In article , PoP
writes
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 22:14:36 -0000, "al"
wrote:

I choose to live in London not because I work here but because I want to.
Some people like the quiet life - I don't.

I hate London or anywhere that is built up. A good night out for me is
a quiet meal in a decent and half-empty pub with my wife. My dream
home would be a quiet village which has a good pub, post office and
place to get provisions.

And I'd sell the car tomorrow if I could find an existence where it
wasn't required.
You could do that in the West Sussex village where I live. It has three
pubs, a co-op mini-store, cafe/restaurant, 2 garden centres, butcher,
pet shop, a small Sainsbury metro store, post-office, (a small tesco and
primary care centre in the near future) Travis-perkins BM, 50 miles from
London, 12 to Worthing, RSPB nature reserve nearby on what was a
useless, Grade 3 (=rubbish land) arable/beef farm, Main line station
from Bognor to London (1hr 10mins).

Unfortunately being in commuter land houses are expensive. Small 3 bed
semi £200,000 and anything that has any character is a second home.
You'll need £300,000+ for anything decent. Meanwhile there is Grade 3
'agricultural' land all around going to waste.


PoP

If you really must use the email address provided
with my newsreader please be aware that the email
is processed with spamcop. As a result your email
to me might be treated as spam!

--
Andrew

In article , Tony Williams
writes
In article ,
PoP wrote:

I hate London or anywhere that is built up. A good night out for
me is a quiet meal in a decent and half-empty pub with my wife.
My dream home would be a quiet village which has a good pub, post
office and place to get provisions.

Small post offices have been made so difficult to run
that they have all but disappeared. So the village
small shop plus post office is no longer viable in
many (most?) places.

We have one, but for how long is an unknown quantity
--
Andrew

"S Viemeister" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

"S Viemeister" wrote
Not much point in building houses that no-one can or will live in.

Once again the point was missed. Please focus.

I'm quite focused, thank you.

You may be, but on the point in question.

BTW, put a village half way up Be Nevis and it would be a big hit.

With second-home owners and holiday-makers, perhaps.

Doesn't make any difference. It will be a hit.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

"G&M" wrote in message
...

Only flood plains prevent building.

That doesn't seem to have stopped them in Berkshire !!!!!

Well that mean 100% of the land in the Uk can house buildings.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

In article , Capitol capitol/@freedom
uk.freeserve.co.uk writes

G&M wrote in message ...

But by moving jobs out of London, demand would drop and prices would be far
nearer the amount people with real jobs could afford.


snip
London and the people will follow. We also need to stop paying a London
allowance to civil servants etc. The market will soon sort out the problems.
MP's have decided that they need an allowance of £14,000 (in addition to
their 47% pay rise right after the last election), so they can afford to
run a house in London and their constituency. No doubt Diane Abbott is
the strongest supporter.
Comfortable-NO, will it work YES!

Moving Parliament would also be a good idea, but the featherbedded
politicians would fight change, tooth and nail.
If Phoney Liar really believes in the wired-up society then close the
houses of parliament and send MPs home to their constits, where they
can use video conferencing instead. Maybe BT would then give adsl to
those parts of the UK still without it.
Regards
Capitol




--
Andrew

IMM wrote:

"S Viemeister" wrote in message
...

IMM wrote:


Nonsense. Towns can be even built up the side Ben Nevis, as they are in

the

Alps. There is lots of open moorland that towns can be built on.


Sure - you can build there - but then you have to have jobs to support the
population,


That is not the point. Some of the brainwashed here were saying that huge
tracts of the UK can't support any building, which is total nonsense. 99%
of the UK can support building, jobs and economy is another matter.





Weaseling again.The whole issueis there is nop point in releasing huge
tracts of land for building if no one wants to build there.

If you had ever stuided geography this confusion woukld not arise. Once
again we have to allow for the educational deficiencies of the Bumper
Book of How Things Work, which obviously features combi boilers, not
economic geography.

People live where there are resources to live on, or off. If those
resources come at too high a price in human time to exploit, then those
areas die as far as human populations goes. Which is why sod all people
live in greenland, or the Sahara, for a small example.


There isn't enough of what people need, to attract them.

Ther is howver lots of land not owned by rich people out there, so
obviously the whole of Nu Laber can bugger off to the sahara and stop
whingeing about UK house prices. Not much central heating needed either.


Huge tracts of the pennines, the dales, the scottish and welsh mountains,

as well as the uplands in the west country, ireland, and teh scottish lisalnds,

the flood plains of the rivers, the marshes and bogs elsewhere are at best marginbal

land for building on.


Noty because one couldn't, but the cost of laying in services,
prioecting against unstable conditions, and so on would render the final
price above what people would be prepared to pay to *live in that spot*.

Not too long ago a friend of mine who works partly at home and partly in
Bristol, bought a very reasonable terraced house in aan old mining
village in south wales. I think he paid £15,000 for it.

Ther are empty houses all over the place un the north and west, going
for a few grand.

There is no housing shortage. What there is is a complete disparity
between where the houses are and where the people want to be.

More an more youngsters are in fact settling in si=outh Wales, somply
because they can afforsd to, and the area is having money pumped into
it, and is a very nice up and comingf part of teh world - I was
pleasantly suprised, compared with when I used to stay there in the 50's
and 60's at how much cleaner and more prosperous it is, since the pits went.

You don't have to legislate: Peole are abandoning London and the south
east because they cannot afford to live and work there. Companies are
abandoning it because the wages they need to pay to have staff of any
caliber turn up are twice what they might pay in e.g. Cardiff.

It all works out in teh end.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 22:57:41 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"S Viemeister" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

"S Viemeister" wrote
Not much point in building houses that no-one can or will live in.

Once again the point was missed. Please focus.

I'm quite focused, thank you.

You may be, but on the point in question.

BTW, put a village half way up Be Nevis and it would be a big hit.

With second-home owners and holiday-makers, perhaps.

Doesn't make any difference. It will be a hit.


Great idea. Let's put in a McDonalds and a launderette as well......



---

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 22:57:41 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"S Viemeister" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

"S Viemeister" wrote
Not much point in building houses that no-one can or will live in.

Once again the point was missed. Please focus.

I'm quite focused, thank you.

You may be, but on the point in question.

BTW, put a village half way up Be Nevis and it would be a big hit.

With second-home owners and holiday-makers, perhaps.

Doesn't make any difference. It will be a hit.


Great idea. Let's put in a McDonalds and a launderette as well......

That's what town have don't they! What do you want a town with facilities?


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

"PoP" wrote in message
...
I hate London or anywhere that is built up. A good night out for me is
a quiet meal in a decent and half-empty pub with my wife. My dream
home would be a quiet village which has a good pub, post office and
place to get provisions.


Well ... each to their own ... I guess our ideas of night's out probably
wouldn't match very often ;o)



a

"PoP" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 16:28:44 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

A LOT of the older people round here simply get a taxi. The actual cost
for one or two trips a week is less than that of car ownership.

Excuse me for asking, but where is "round here"?


LOL ... certainly not London black cabs anyway!!



a

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

"S Viemeister" wrote in message
...

IMM wrote:


Nonsense. Towns can be even built up the side Ben Nevis, as they are in

the

Alps. There is lots of open moorland that towns can be built on.


Sure - you can build there - but then you have to have jobs to support
the
population,


That is not the point. Some of the brainwashed here were saying that
huge
tracts of the UK can't support any building, which is total nonsense.
99%
of the UK can support building, jobs and economy is another matter.

Weaseling again.The whole issueis there is nop point in releasing huge
tracts of land for building if no one wants to build there.

It isn't Our snotty uni man said large parts of the UK cannot be built on
for physical,reasons.

If you had ever stuided geography

And I have.

this confusion woukld not arise.

Why? has someone moved parts of the UK?

Once again we have to allow for the educational deficiencies of the Bumper
Book of How Things Work, which obviously features combi boilers, not
economic geography.

Did get the big colour edition this Christmas.

People live where there are resources to live
on, or off. If those resources come at too high
a price in human time to exploit, then those
areas die as far as human populations goes.
Which is why sod all people
live in greenland, or the Sahara, for a small example.

Well I never! Well the UK is not tundra or desert. Look at your Times
Atlas.

Ther is howver lots of land not owned by
rich people out there,

A small percentage.

so obviously the whole of Nu Laber can bugger off to the sahara and stop
whingeing about UK house prices. Not much central heating needed either.

Wow!

Huge tracts of the pennines, the dales, the scottish and welsh mountains,
as well as the uplands in the west country, ireland, and teh scottish
lisalnds,
the flood plains of the rivers, the marshes and bogs elsewhere are at best
marginbal
land for building on.

It can be built on, without much problem. Ever been the Alps?

Noty because one couldn't, but the cost of laying in services,
prioecting against unstable conditions, and so on would render the final
price above what people would be prepared to pay to *live in that spot*.

Not so.

Not too long ago a friend of mine who works partly at home and partly in
Bristol, bought a very reasonable terraced house in aan old mining
village in south wales. I think he paid £15,000 for it.

You mean tiny scruffy terraced house. IN the US they have walk in closets
bigger than them. You can't be serious. The term house is questionable
when talking about those structures.

Ther are empty houses all over the place un the north and west, going
for a few grand.

They are damp ridden, scruffy, tiny boxes.

There is no housing shortage.

You are a fool. The country is short of 8 million of them. On TV yesteday
Milton Keynes was presidted to be larger than Liverpool in 20 years and
larger than Nottingham in about 8.

What there is is a complete disparity
between where the houses are and
where the people want to be.

Those are not houses in modern sense.

You don't have to legislate: Peole are abandoning London and the south
east because they cannot afford to live and work there. Companies are
abandoning it because the wages they need to pay to have staff of any
caliber turn up are twice what they might pay in e.g. Cardiff.

Not so. People have said that about London for the past 40 years. It has
never happened. Legislation is the only way to de-centralise.

It all works out in teh end.

Not by itself it wont.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

"IMM" wrote in message
...
I choose to live in London not because I work here but because I want
to.
Some people like the quiet life - I don't.

I hate London or anywhere that is built up. A good night out for me is
a quiet meal in a decent and half-empty pub with my wife

Do you hate life as well.


Just because he likes things a different way doesn't mean he's sad.
Slagging people off for being different makes you sad ...



a

IMM wrote:

"S Viemeister" wrote in message
...

IMM wrote:

"S Viemeister" wrote

Sure - you can build there - but then you have to have jobs to support

the

population,

That is not the point. Some of the brainwashed here were saying that

huge

tracts of the UK can't support any building, which is total nonsense.

99%

of the UK can support building, jobs and economy is another matter.


Not much point in building houses that no-one can or will live in.


Once again the point was missed. Please focus.

BTW, put a village half way up Be Nevis and it would be a big hit.



With climbers maybe, but who else would be prepared to pay the sort of
tens of millions to get water, electricity and roads laid in, not to
mention broadband etc etc,. I doubt you could even get TV there apart
from satellite.

Have you ever BEEN to that area?

It has NOTHING going for it apart from a little forestry and killing the
odd deer.

Anything you do there is twice to ten times as expensive as anywhere
else, because its miles away from anything that needs doing.




---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

"S Viemeister" wrote in message
...

IMM wrote:

"S Viemeister" wrote

Sure - you can build there - but then you have to have jobs to support

the

population,

That is not the point. Some of the brainwashed here were saying that

huge

tracts of the UK can't support any building, which is total nonsense.

99%

of the UK can support building, jobs and economy is another matter.


Not much point in building houses that no-one can or will live in.


Once again the point was missed. Please focus.

BTW, put a village half way up Be Nevis and it would be a big hit.



With climbers maybe, but who else would be prepared to pay the sort of
tens of millions to get water, electricity and roads laid in, not to
mention broadband etc etc,. I doubt you could even get TV there apart
from satellite.

So it can be built on then.

Have you ever BEEN to that area?

yep.

It has NOTHING going for it apart from a little forestry and killing the
odd deer.

De-restrict planning and redistribute land and the area will prosper.

Anything you do there is twice to ten times as expensive as anywhere
else, because its miles away from anything that needs doing.

Salt Lake City is the most ridiculous place to put a city. The lake is a 40
mile wide ditch. Some religious freak said this is where we build because
he was tired of travelling and up came SLC. The city is the centre and all
revolves around it.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
...
Of which London has what to any appreciable level of quality?
Museums, yes; night buses, maybe. The others listed above have
exactly two characteristics: crap and ludicrously expensive.

Oh you're so so badly wrong there. If you live here, let me suggest some
proper places to eat and drink. If you don't, might I suggest when you
visit you find some friends who can show you decent places to go? And I'm
sorry, but the price thing don't wash either unless you're doing the tourist
runs around the Palace and Westminster and eating ice-creams at 5 times the
price! An Indian (abour £10 a head without drink), Chinese (about £13 a
head without drink) or kebab (about £5 a head without drink) costs the same
here as anywhere else in the "country" where I've tried it and is 9 times
out of ten WAY WAY better food! Those prices are sit-in prices for full
meals in proper restaurants - not plastic tabled holes!

The sad thing is that so few of those who live in London actually
realize what a third-rate city they are inhabiting (compared to, say,
Paris, or Berlin, or Rome, or Milan, or Madrid, or Lisbon, or NYC, or
San Francisco, or Boston, or Toronto, or Montreal, or Sydney, or
Melbourne ... to name a few).

Actually, I've lived here for 5 years, but know London a bit most of my
life. I've spent most of my life, particularly early on, travelling a great
deal in Europe, North Africa and Asia and have experience with all sorts of
city types. Every city has people with the same attitudes ... the grass is
always greener! What would you know about life in Rome if you only visit as
a tourist? About the same as a tourist visiting London - usually a good
impression, particularly if the culture is very different to what you're
used to. Every country has corrupt politicians, crime and pollution
problems. Mind you ... not all cities have smart arses like Ken Livingstone
who want to turn an entire region (within the M25) into a congestion charge
zone!!!! Grrrrr .....

OTOH I'm very glad that those who have this bizarre liking for London
prefer to stay there -- I'm sure it makes the rest of the country much
more pleasant for the rest of us :-)


I could say the same - I'm glad the country keeps it's high percentage of
close-minded people with their boring lives (vast generalisation statement
over now!!). Swings & roundabouts mate ... London has more than its fair
share of w**kers and the country has its fair share of Deliverance style
freaks! In the country I would just have to travel too far to get to all
the things I like. In London or any other large city they're on my
doorstep - and if you know the place properly they don't cost any more
either!

Houses on the other hand (to bring the topic back round to the original
reason!) are bloody ridiculous here. I live just outside of London near the
end of a tube line so I can have a proper house with a proper garden (first
time buyer 1 year ago!) and still get into Oxford Street in 35 mins on the
tube. For the same money in say Northampton, I could have another bedroom
or two and be detached. But I certainly don't live in a slum like most
people think Londoners (even non-central ones) do.



a

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
I choose to live in London not because I work here but because I want to.
Some people like the quiet life - I don't.

You're young, yes?


Old enough for that to be a compliment were you female ;P



a

"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
...
Since we're talking about London, this tells me that "most people" are
either masochistic or very, very stupid ;-)


I'm neither - and I can well afford the night life here. If you go to dumb
places on the King's Road that charge £6 a bottle all night then expect to
be ripped off. Normal nights out costs normal prices. Take Dublin as
another city. If you went to some all-night club in Leeson Street you'd pay
outrageous prices for drink and large cover charges to get in. If you went
to normal clubs you wouldn't. If you were in the country, there'd be a
local disco 80% full of local blokes looking for a fight, 10 % normal blokes
and 10% women - 1% of whom would be attractive ..... *ducks* ..... ;P

If you're a cheapskate, goto Weatherspoons for £1.40 a pint all day long!

The right jobs and the right salaries (for me) are in London. If I moved
out and actually managed to find a job doing the same somewhere else I'd be
earning less and have less disposable income. Before you jump to any
conclusions, I'm not some bank employed rich-boy! At least if I earn more
and spend more, then when I save for a bit it matters more!!!


a

"IMM" wrote in message
...
London is an anomaly, not the norm at all.

But contains 10% of the population of the UK.

And 90% live elsewhere and hate the place.


I'd have thought more people would hate Birmingham actually, and that's a
tiny proportion of the UK population :P



a

"al" wrote in message
...
"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
...
Of which London has what to any appreciable level of quality?
Museums, yes; night buses, maybe. The others listed above have
exactly two characteristics: crap and ludicrously expensive.

Oh you're so so badly wrong there. If you live here, let me suggest some
proper places to eat and drink. If you don't, might I suggest when you
visit you find some friends who can show you decent places to go? And I'm
sorry, but the price thing don't wash either unless you're doing the
tourist
runs around the Palace and Westminster and eating ice-creams at 5 times
the
price! An Indian (abour £10 a head without drink), Chinese (about £13 a
head without drink) or kebab (about £5 a head without drink) costs the
same
here as anywhere else in the "country" where I've tried it and is 9 times
out of ten WAY WAY better food! Those prices are sit-in prices for full
meals in proper restaurants - not plastic tabled holes!

So true. I know many well priced restaurants in London, but you have to know
where they are.

The sad thing is that so few of those who live in London actually
realize what a third-rate city they are inhabiting (compared to, say,
Paris, or Berlin, or Rome, or Milan, or Madrid, or Lisbon, or NYC, or
San Francisco, or Boston, or Toronto, or Montreal, or Sydney, or
Melbourne ... to name a few).

Actually, I've lived here for 5 years, but know London a bit most of my
life. I've spent most of my life, particularly early on, travelling a
great
deal in Europe, North Africa and Asia and have experience with all sorts
of
city types. Every city has people with the same attitudes ... the grass
is
always greener! What would you know about life in Rome if you only visit
as
a tourist? About the same as a tourist visiting London - usually a good
impression, particularly if the culture is very different to what you're
used to.

Paris is a much nicer people friendly city than London. Berlin, SF all have
something London just lacks.

Every country has corrupt politicians, crime and pollution
problems. Mind you ... not all cities have smart arses like Ken
Livingstone
who want to turn an entire region (within the M25) into a congestion
charge
zone!!!! Grrrrr .....

I love Ken. He is fab! He is the only one attempting to make London a kind
of people friendly place. His aim is to make the quality of life of the
people much better. the problem with London is that those who made the most
money from it lived in villages in Surrey and couldn't give a hoot about the
place. Ken want those who prosper most from London to be Londoners (those
that live there).

If you want your small town car driving, go to a small town.

OTOH I'm very glad that those who have this bizarre liking for London
prefer to stay there -- I'm sure it makes the rest of the country much
more pleasant for the rest of us :-)

I could say the same - I'm glad the country keeps it's high percentage of
close-minded people with their boring lives (vast generalisation statement
over now!!). Swings & roundabouts mate ... London has more than its fair
share of w**kers and the country has its fair share of Deliverance style
freaks! In the country I would just have to travel too far to get to all
the things I like. In London or any other large city they're on my
doorstep - and if you know the place properly they don't cost any more
either!

Houses on the other hand (to bring the topic back round to the original
reason!) are bloody ridiculous here. I live just outside of London near
the
end of a tube line so I can have a proper house with a proper garden
(first
time buyer 1 year ago!) and still get into Oxford Street in 35 mins on the
tube. For the same money in say Northampton, I could have another bedroom
or two and be detached.

And the place would be twice as big.

But I certainly don't live in a slum like most
people think Londoners (even non-central ones) do.

London has some awful dilapidated property. Whole areas of it. It amazes me
when the London based press have a go at Liverpool. They really must have
selective amnesia when looking around London. Or are these the Surrey
villages who only see the City rail stations and their own village?




---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

al wrote:

"IMM" wrote in message
...

I choose to live in London not because I work here but because I want

to.

Some people like the quiet life - I don't.

I hate London or anywhere that is built up. A good night out for me is
a quiet meal in a decent and half-empty pub with my wife

Do you hate life as well.



Just because he likes things a different way doesn't mean he's sad.
Slagging people off for being different makes you sad ...



Really? Coming from you that is....hypocritical beyond belief...

You will be voting Liberal next!




a

IMM wrote:

Our snotty uni man said large parts of the UK cannot be built on
for physical,reasons.


and

Slagging people off for being different makes you sad ...



I rest my case. m'lud :-)

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

LOL ... I've just read this posting thinking it was IMM and being quite
impressed for him presenting some actual facts for once! But of course I
now see it wasn't him after looking properly


Yes. Except in this case they haven't done the sums, and don't realise it.

I've done the sums - it's good for me here.

Most people are in london because that is where the highest paid jobs
are. Or sometimes ANY jobs are. Or because they were born there, and
haven't a clue how to get away.

All very true.

In et 50's people began to commute. My parents moved to what was then
outsiie london, but my father still worked 'in town'

That process continyued until the originally quite rural home counties
now resmble contiguous suburbia. Ther is very little true countryside
left in teh home counties, except right off the communication corridoors.

As communiactions got better and worse, so other areas opend up - or
clsed down, and now people live in Oxford, Cambridge, Colchester.
Norwich and so on, and work in the city.

Also very true.


They are willing to trade 4 hours a day travelling for the privilege of
NOT having to bring their kids up in London.

I'd hate the 4 hours more. I'm happy to bring my kids (if/when that
happens!!) up here. I only travel 40 mins into work door-to-door, which
might seem a lot to some people, but for any sort of large town/city that's
pretty good. I can also get myself home at any stage of in the night in
virtually any state with the transport options available.


Its all going pear shaped because nwo the actual fact is that altho
london is teh place where the work is, no one wants to live there, and
it takes about 5 times the workers as it has space to house them, and in
any case its so larger that on average each person who lives and works
in london still does an hour or more commute anyway...

I think plenty of people want to and enjoy living here. The rest of what
you're saying is true though.

The answer is to simply move the work out, and the people back to thise
northern towns where they came from oin the 50's and give london back to
teh few people who actually want to be there.

All cities across the world attract people to them ... thus why they become
cities!

Its actually happening, as people realise that places like manchetser
and Leeds have better club scenes, places like Oxford and Cambridge have
better book shops, places like Lesicester have better asian stores,
places like little potton under marsh have spaces for children to play
and low crime rates...and indeed, there is as much of a life to be had
if not more, stacking shelves there than dealing dodgy bonds in teh
city...if you are not too greedy...

I do like Leeds for a night out. Manchester once every year or two maybe!!
I think Newcastle is my favorite in Britain. Followed jointly by London and
Leeds.



Its all in flux, its all changing. London is disintegrating

not really ...

because it is EXPENSIVE. It is no longer value for money

true for housing ... nothing else is particularly expensive ...

And that game is teh boom and bust game. If firms simplyopen up
elsewhere, london will empty and prices come crashing down.

I don't see it happening in my lifetime! Actually - it better not now that
I've bought!

BTW, many firms do open up elsewhere. Look at the major technology firms
lining the M4 corridor and around Glasgow. The other UK cities also have
their fair share of head offices, etc. too. Just not as high a density of
them.



a

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

Our snotty uni man said large parts of the UK cannot be built on
for physical,reasons.


and

Slagging people off for being different makes you sad ...

I rest my case. m'lud :-)

Is this case heavy?


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

"IMM" wrote in message
...

A recent survey said that the home counties were underpopulated. There is
tons of land thee, tons of it. Only in the commuting corridors is it
built,
and as people tend to use these it gives the wrong impression.

Very true. It's easy to get a false impression from the road. Flying over
parts of London/Home Counties is very educational. Even the zone 1 area of
London is actually very green from the air! Long may it stay that way.



a

IMM wrote:


Salt Lake City is the most ridiculous place to put a city. The lake is a 40
mile wide ditch. Some religious freak said this is where we build because
he was tired of travelling and up came SLC. The city is the centre and all
revolves around it.


It does have water however. AND its bang on a big trans-america route.

Try Vegas for an even more crazy place....BUT again, it had some water,
and it was bang in the middle of a mining area and on a transport route...

whereas nearby there are many ghost towns that cessed to exist becase
the mines ran out. No mileage in sticking there when the basic source of
income has gone.

Vegas only survived because it was a 'play area' for the whole desert
area, and of course because all teh mormons from Salt Lake city needed
somewhere to go and have a bit of Sin now and again.




---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

"al" wrote in message
...
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

LOL ... I've just read this posting thinking it was IMM and being quite
impressed for him presenting some actual facts for once!

I am a highly factual person. I also "know".


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

"al" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

A recent survey said that the home counties were underpopulated. There
is
tons of land thee, tons of it. Only in the commuting corridors is it
built,
and as people tend to use these it gives the wrong impression.

Very true. It's easy to get a false impression from the road. Flying
over
parts of London/Home Counties is very educational. Even the zone 1 area
of
London is actually very green from the air! Long may it stay that way.

And so say I.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 03/01/2004

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:


Salt Lake City is the most ridiculous place to put a city. The lake is
a 40
mile wide ditch. Some religious freak said this is where we build
because
he was tired of travelling and up came SLC. The city is the centre and
all
revolves around it.


It does have water

The city is not on the ditch!

however. AND its bang on a big trans-america route.

The communications came because of the town, now city.

Try Vegas for an even more crazy place....BUT again, it had some water,
and it was bang in the middle of a mining area and on a transport route...

whereas nearby there are many ghost towns that cessed to exist becase
the mines ran out. No mileage in sticking there when the basic source of
income has gone.

Vegas only survived because it was a 'play area' for the whole desert
area, and of course because all teh mormons from Salt Lake city needed
somewhere to go and have a bit of Sin now and again.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 03/01/2004

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
The point is I used to live in London. And I never went to the the pubs,
clubs, museums, theatres, or use the public transport much, or met any
open minded people.

Largely, I was so knackered in dealing with the mechanics of stayng
alive, and had so little cash left, that I sued to get home, shut teh
door, and go to bed.

Sounds like you had a hectic job ...


Now, living aboyt as far away timewise from teh West End as I used to on
North London, although I live in Suffolk, I find the occasional trip to
Londomn to todo all that stuff is actually quicker...

And teh pubs are here, if I want them, but generally I don't. In short,
I don't miss a single thing. I wake up on Sunday when the first car of
the day goes past at 12 o clock, on its way to the pub....and rejoiice.

I choose to live in London not because I work here but because I want
to.
Some people like the quiet life - I don't.

Well I jolly well DO.


Good for you - at least someone can do what they feel makes them happy
without worrying about what others believe is right for everyone!! Some
days I too like the peace and quiet, some days I like to let it rip a
little. Maybe we should meet for a quiet pint in a busy club or a hard
night out in an quiet country pub. What's better - the middle ground or
alternate extremes! ;o)



a

al wrote:

"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
...

Of which London has what to any appreciable level of quality?
Museums, yes; night buses, maybe. The others listed above have
exactly two characteristics: crap and ludicrously expensive.


Oh you're so so badly wrong there. If you live here, let me suggest some
proper places to eat and drink. If you don't, might I suggest when you
visit you find some friends who can show you decent places to go? And I'm
sorry, but the price thing don't wash either unless you're doing the tourist
runs around the Palace and Westminster and eating ice-creams at 5 times the
price! An Indian (abour £10 a head without drink), Chinese (about £13 a
head without drink) or kebab (about £5 a head without drink) costs the same
here as anywhere else in the "country" where I've tried it and is 9 times
out of ten WAY WAY better food! Those prices are sit-in prices for full
meals in proper restaurants - not plastic tabled holes!


Out here, I can get a really good meal for a fiver. INFINITELY better
food than I have EVER had in london for less than about 40 quid.




The sad thing is that so few of those who live in London actually
realize what a third-rate city they are inhabiting (compared to, say,
Paris, or Berlin, or Rome, or Milan, or Madrid, or Lisbon, or NYC, or
San Francisco, or Boston, or Toronto, or Montreal, or Sydney, or
Melbourne ... to name a few).


Actually, I've lived here for 5 years, but know London a bit most of my
life. I've spent most of my life, particularly early on, travelling a great
deal in Europe, North Africa and Asia and have experience with all sorts of
city types. Every city has people with the same attitudes ... the grass is
always greener! What would you know about life in Rome if you only visit as
a tourist? About the same as a tourist visiting London - usually a good
impression, particularly if the culture is very different to what you're
used to. Every country has corrupt politicians, crime and pollution
problems. Mind you ... not all cities have smart arses like Ken Livingstone
who want to turn an entire region (within the M25) into a congestion charge
zone!!!! Grrrrr .....


Try johamnesburg. Great climate, great food, cheap houses. Swinmming
pools and servants thrown in.

Only problem ius you need to live behind 20ft high razor wire topped
walls, and carry a bodyguard with you wherever you go.



OTOH I'm very glad that those who have this bizarre liking for London
prefer to stay there -- I'm sure it makes the rest of the country much
more pleasant for the rest of us :-)



I could say the same - I'm glad the country keeps it's high percentage of
close-minded people with their boring lives (vast generalisation statement
over now!!). Swings & roundabouts mate ... London has more than its fair
share of w**kers and the country has its fair share of Deliverance style
freaks! In the country I would just have to travel too far to get to all
the things I like. In London or any other large city they're on my
doorstep - and if you know the place properly they don't cost any more
either!


In the country all the things I like are on my doorstep.

Can you wander out of your front door bollock naked and **** on the
flowerbeds without getting arrested? Can you actually see the Milky Way?
Can you have freshly killed rabbits pheasants and deer delivered to you
straight of the back of a quad bike, and take the dog for a 4 mile walk
without ever going on a public road or needing a lead?

Can you lie in bed on the weekends and not hear a single car?

Can you walk out the back door and pick ALL the fresh herbs you need?

Can you spend a while day without seeing a single other human being? God
what a relief THAT is !

Leave you cars permanently unlocked and even your house?


....and still get to a museum, rock concert, prom concert or art gallery
in under 1 1/2 hours IF YOU REALLY want to.

And actually have time to get to know your neighbours? - or not, if you
prefer.



Houses on the other hand (to bring the topic back round to the original
reason!) are bloody ridiculous here. I live just outside of London near the
end of a tube line so I can have a proper house with a proper garden (first
time buyer 1 year ago!) and still get into Oxford Street in 35 mins on the
tube. For the same money in say Northampton, I could have another bedroom
or two and be detached. But I certainly don't live in a slum like most
people think Londoners (even non-central ones) do.


You live in the suburbs, not London then.





a

al wrote:

"IMM" wrote in message
...

London is an anomaly, not the norm at all.

But contains 10% of the population of the UK.

And 90% live elsewhere and hate the place.



I'd have thought more people would hate Birmingham actually, and that's a
tiny proportion of the UK population :P




I wuite LIKE Birmingham actually.

Its places like Hackney and Tottenham that scare the pants off me.



a

"IMM" wrote in message
...
Nonsense. Towns can be even built up the side Ben Nevis, as they are in
the
Alps. There is lots of open moorland that towns can be built on. Only
flood
plains prevent building. Very little of the UK cannot be built on.


Just because something *can* be built, doesn't mean there's an incentive to
live there. Example - you want a holiday home and have to choose between
Dubai and Afghanistan. One has a stable (at least right now), clean and
well run economy and attractive homes to buy, the other is torn apart by
war. You *can* build a house in either, but Afghanistan right now is
uninhabitable for most people. The Scottish highlands can have houses built
on it - but who'd want to live there! Towns form where resources make it
beneficial to live (shelter, water, commerce, etc.). Places that oppose
that way of thinking are "uninhabitable" from the point of view that it will
never make sense to have a settlement there.

If I sold my house here, I could goto the highlands and buy huge amounts of
land and build a palatial house. What good would it do me? The area is
uninhabitable unless you're a hermit.



a

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
et...
Nonsense. Towns can be even built up the side Ben Nevis, as they are
in the Alps.

Ben Nevis isn't in the Alps.

It is still a "small" mountain. Towns in the Alps are built far high in
more dramatic topology.


Ahhh ... but can we spot that there was an economic incentive for people to
settle there? They really didn't do it just because they thought it would
be a well 'ard place to live that would impress the likes of you!!



a

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Out here, I can get a really good meal for a fiver. INFINITELY better
food than I have EVER had in london for less than about 40 quid.

£40 a head for nosh? get back to London mate.

In the country all the things I like are on my doorstep.

Cow **** on your doorstep?

Can you lie in bed on the weekends and not hear a single car?

I can lie in bed in my London pad and not hear cars. It is in a court yard
type of place with well sealed windows. Not a sound!

Can you walk out the back door and pick ALL the fresh herbs you need?

I have herbs shops nearby.

Can you spend a while day without seeing a single other human being? God
what a relief THAT is !

I can sit in my London pad and not see soul too.

Leave you cars permanently unlocked and even your house?

In London I don't need a car to leave unlocked.

...and still get to a museum, rock concert, prom concert or art gallery
in under 1 1/2 hours IF YOU REALLY want to.

I can get to them in a matter of minutes.

And actually have time to get to know your neighbours? - or not, if you
prefer.

Same here.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 03/01/2004

"IMM" wrote in message
...

That's what town have don't they! What do you want a town with
facilities?


Well some people might say that spectacular and wild landscapes deserve to
be kept that way. Weird eh!?



a

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
People live where there are resources to live on, or off. If those
resources come at too high a price in human time to exploit, then those
areas die as far as human populations goes. Which is why sod all people
live in greenland, or the Sahara, for a small example.


And also, sadly as it may or may not be, is why "the North" isn't so
profitable a place to live now. Their time of valuable resource has passed.
As mankind evolves and seeks new resources it may change back to being the
most profitable part of the UK. But it still has ****e whether mind you



a

al wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

LOL ... I've just read this posting thinking it was IMM and being quite
impressed for him presenting some actual facts for once! But of course I
now see it wasn't him after looking properly


And that game is teh boom and bust game. If firms simplyopen up
elsewhere, london will empty and prices come crashing down.


I don't see it happening in my lifetime! Actually - it better not now that
I've bought!

BTW, many firms do open up elsewhere. Look at the major technology firms
lining the M4 corridor and around Glasgow. The other UK cities also have
their fair share of head offices, etc. too. Just not as high a density of
them.



Glasgow is not a bad town really. Apart from being wet cold dark and
gloomy in winter.

Bristol is another one I have a bit of affection for.

Leeds looks nice, but I haven't been there long enough...and I enjoyed
staying in Leicester once for a couple of weeks.

Oxford and Cambridge have gone loony left and are not worth visitng
anymore.

Bath is still - Bath!

I hated Brussels.
Copenhagen is utter ****e.
Some people like New York, but you can keep it as far as I am concerned.
Ditto Paris.
Orelans looked nice, but I never had time to find out...
Prague is worth a look.
Dublin is worth getting ****ed in. Fine museum.
Seville...now I could get used to Seville...








a

"al" wrote in message
...
"IMM" wrote in message
...

Nonsense. Towns can be even built up
the side Ben Nevis, as they are in the
Alps. There is lots of open moorland
that towns can be built on. Only
flood plains prevent building. Very little of
the UK cannot be built on.

Just because something *can* be built,
doesn't mean there's an incentive to
live there.

That is not the point. The point that snotty uni was saying large parts of
the UK cannot be physically built on.

If I sold my house here, I could goto
the highlands and buy huge amounts of
land and build a palatial house.

Can you??? Please try!!! You cannot build in the country. We are
prevented from doing so. Only in certain circumstance can you build, usually
replacing an existing building. Try to buy open land and build a big house.
You will be shocked.




---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 03/01/2004

"al" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
et...
Nonsense. Towns can be even built up the side Ben Nevis, as they are
in the Alps.

Ben Nevis isn't in the Alps.

It is still a "small" mountain. Towns in the Alps are built far high in
more dramatic topology.


Ahhh ... but can we spot that there
was an economic incentive for people to
settle there?

Missed the point.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 03/01/2004