zebidee
Well-Known Forumite
Absolutely agree with this!
-
Welcome to Stafford Forum. Please or sign-up and start posting!
Poll Do you think Stafford is "Run Down" ?
- Thread starter c0tt0nt0p
- Start date
tek-monkey
wanna see my snake?
ATJ
Well-Known Forumite
That's because austerity is a lie. Ideological warfare on the state, not an economic necessity.
tek-monkey
wanna see my snake?
Withnail
Well-Known Forumite
Eyes down for a full house...
Problem One
Stafford has gone completely and utterly, nay irredeemably, to shit
Problem Two
It is all the fault of the Council(s)
Solution One
Everybody has to be serious about everything all the time because Problem One
Solution Two
I am the only person aware of Problems One & Two, and what's more i'm the only person doing anything about it
Now i don't claim to be any kind of expert in the relative merits of 'debatin' style's, 2017 or otherwise, but what i do tend to notice about @HopesDad 's offerings is that they tend to be 'long' (often '-winded') on what might be generously typified as 'style', but disconcertingly 'short' on anything approaching substance.
As an example -
Stafford is an unholy mess, and it is I, Withnail, who is the only one amongst us sorting it out.
- now you might have a few questions...
... like, 'Withnail, old bean, in what way is Stafford an unholy mess?' So, Withnail, what in particular are you doing to make it less so?' - questions like those.
To which my answers are a) because it is, that's why, and b) why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? And f**k yum yums.
Which, when having stepped back a bit, and reviewed, doesn't really add up to much of a position at all.
Yay! I got a line!
New balls please.
+2
Manners maketh man - i can understand why people probably did report him, not that i would have, due to the 'nasty' part. Is there really any need for such bile?
This is demonstrably not true. There are, and have been, many disagreements, many that have rubbed rather raw (admittedly not so much in recent years), yet they have happened without recourse to undue amounts of venom. Especially not that kind of venom that seems to 'overspill' to extraneous areas.
Let's step back a bit and review @HopesDad 's position - it seems to rest upon two 'problems' + two 'solutions' -
Problem One
Stafford has gone completely and utterly, nay irredeemably, to shit
Problem Two
It is all the fault of the Council(s)
Solution One
Everybody has to be serious about everything all the time because Problem One
Solution Two
I am the only person aware of Problems One & Two, and what's more i'm the only person doing anything about it
Now i don't claim to be any kind of expert in the relative merits of 'debatin' style's, 2017 or otherwise, but what i do tend to notice about @HopesDad 's offerings is that they tend to be 'long' (often '-winded') on what might be generously typified as 'style', but disconcertingly 'short' on anything approaching substance.
As an example -
Now i could say that too. In fact, i think i will -
Stafford is an unholy mess, and it is I, Withnail, who is the only one amongst us sorting it out.
- now you might have a few questions...
... like, 'Withnail, old bean, in what way is Stafford an unholy mess?' So, Withnail, what in particular are you doing to make it less so?' - questions like those.
To which my answers are a) because it is, that's why, and b) why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? And f**k yum yums.
Which, when having stepped back a bit, and reviewed, doesn't really add up to much of a position at all.
Now you're on to something here, although the 'disconnect'is probably not as disconnected as you think - 58% In, 31% Out, 10% Undecided - hardly the 'clean sweep' you imply.
+1
+1
+1
Yay! I got a line!
New balls please.
Last edited:
BobClay
Well-Known Forumite
I'd say that was over engineered, but in all fairness, reasonably accurate.
He's a narcissist would be my explanation. He's not the full bag of marbles, but, that seems like a personal attack and so not really very honourable (I feel I can do it now because you've produced your data intensive attack so I'm taking advantage of some natural cover.) There you go, I'm not very honourable. (On occasion.)
He's a narcissist would be my explanation. He's not the full bag of marbles, but, that seems like a personal attack and so not really very honourable (I feel I can do it now because you've produced your data intensive attack so I'm taking advantage of some natural cover.) There you go, I'm not very honourable. (On occasion.)
Withnail
Well-Known Forumite
Live by the (s)word, die by the (s)word.
Withnail
Well-Known Forumite
It's easy to think that things are easy, but things you think should be easy rarely are.
A perfect example of this occurred sometime earlier -
I am getting very close to very much having enough of half-wits.
If memory serves, the aforementioned honourable Member also stated that the building that was Conexxions (sp?) and is now Peacocks deemed itself worth £1m. If you can remember the 'area within the red line' and take the area of that one building as a sort of 'baseline', any fule kno that to acquire the entire area would be fantastically expensive.
Then you have to knock it down. Which isn't free.
Then you have to build it up. Which isn't either.
Then you get a post from someone like @kyoto49 who within a heartbeat is saying exactly the same thing - how easy it all is, just bulldoze the lot, build houses instead. Just like it would be easy to convert the existing Cinema, no need for a new one.
People with no idea about things outside of their sphere of knowledge willing things to be easy, simply because they wish them to be so.
They've all had enough of experts. More fool them.
A perfect example of this occurred sometime earlier -
HopesDad said:
HopesDad said:
Now acquiring things to redevelop to be other things is very much 'not my line', so to speak, so when someone like @highguyuk gives his tuppenceworth on such matters i tend to give their opinions a bit more weight. Because unlike some, i have not had enough of experts.
I am getting very close to very much having enough of half-wits.
If memory serves, the aforementioned honourable Member also stated that the building that was Conexxions (sp?) and is now Peacocks deemed itself worth £1m. If you can remember the 'area within the red line' and take the area of that one building as a sort of 'baseline', any fule kno that to acquire the entire area would be fantastically expensive.
Then you have to knock it down. Which isn't free.
Then you have to build it up. Which isn't either.
Then you get a post from someone like @kyoto49 who within a heartbeat is saying exactly the same thing - how easy it all is, just bulldoze the lot, build houses instead. Just like it would be easy to convert the existing Cinema, no need for a new one.
People with no idea about things outside of their sphere of knowledge willing things to be easy, simply because they wish them to be so.
They've all had enough of experts. More fool them.
highguyuk
Well-Known Forumite
We looked at the building that was Connexions (also sp?!) AFTER they moved from the building that is now Peacocks. This one (not sure if I was out on the price or is has been reduced). http://www.rightmove.co.uk/commercial-property-for-sale/property-45322479.html
Gramaisc
Forum O. G.
Around 1980ish, I worked with a strange bloke, who had little to do with people at work. He used to arrive every day with a giant rucksack and leave it next to his desk. We spotted that he never opened the rucksack all day, just put it on and left at the end of the day.
People were mystified as to what it was all about.
It turned out that, in an effort to reduce his living costs, he had spotted a possibility - he only lived in Stafford during the week, he went back to Worcester on Friday nights, coming straight up to work on Monday morning, so he only needed four nights accommodation in Stafford every week.
He used to wait for the cleaners in that building to leave at night and used the top floor of the stairwell as his 'room', leaving early in the morning, before anybody from the 'daytime' occupants arrived. As long as he left no evidence, nobody seemed to bother, if anybody even knew...
This was long before 'homelessness' was visible around here and such 'public areas' would often be unlocked at night - of course, motion detectors and CCTV were rare then, too.
He did that for most of a year.
Withnail
Well-Known Forumite
Ah, right - wrong end of stick.
If you had to make a rough estimate, how much do you would think it would cost to purchase your aforementioned 'area in red'?
What about the legal costs of obtaining them through CPO?
I would like to see it happen too - a mix of residential and green space - but one imagines it would be fantastically complex, not to say alarmingly expensive, to achieve.
Carole
Well-Known Forumite
But the building in the link isn't the building that is now Peacocks.
It's the one in Foregate St.
Carole
Well-Known Forumite
Yes, it does make sense and it means that I also had the wrong end of the stick.
highguyuk
Well-Known Forumite
How many ends are there on a stick? 
I wasn't in the land buying department, so I don't want to go spouting numbers that I just can't substantiate - but it's safe to say it would be in the tens of millions. My old team used to re-develop quite a lot of old pubs with adjacent car parks, it was a good size for what they needed. If you took the Chetwynd Arms at Brocton for example of size only (there are no plans to redevelop as far as I know!), that would cost in the region of £300k-£350k.
The huge cost (and time) of redeveloping is the services. As each of the providers (Openreach/Western Power/National Gas etc.) have their own requirements for alterations and diversions, it can cost thousands just to understand the location of the existing services and get quotes to do something with them. On a pub development I was undertaking, there was a BT telegraph pole within the grounds. We were quoted over £1k, just for Openreach to provide a quote to move it.
I wasn't in the land buying department, so I don't want to go spouting numbers that I just can't substantiate - but it's safe to say it would be in the tens of millions. My old team used to re-develop quite a lot of old pubs with adjacent car parks, it was a good size for what they needed. If you took the Chetwynd Arms at Brocton for example of size only (there are no plans to redevelop as far as I know!), that would cost in the region of £300k-£350k.
The huge cost (and time) of redeveloping is the services. As each of the providers (Openreach/Western Power/National Gas etc.) have their own requirements for alterations and diversions, it can cost thousands just to understand the location of the existing services and get quotes to do something with them. On a pub development I was undertaking, there was a BT telegraph pole within the grounds. We were quoted over £1k, just for Openreach to provide a quote to move it.
Quite right. Stafford people will not do anything but moan about the town and shops shutting down. It is because they don't use them so how does that mean they are intelligent ..?I think the 'powers that be' have a planning role in the town, but ultimately, surely, if you don't use it, you lose it. Two points I want to make are: we the people elect the powers that be, so collectively we've got who we voted for in a free election, and market forces determine what shops we have and their success or not, depending on whether customers decide to spend their money in them.
The people make any town what it is, ultimately. I said before that Stafford people are generally intelligent and capable, so we need to work hard to promote our town, use it, and start new businesses, not rely on 'someone else', then when things fail, blame the council or the government or brexit
Also if we keep talking it down in a public forum, no-one new will want to come because they'll think it's a dump. It really isn't!
proactive
Enjoying a drop of red.
Facts, rather than conjecture, supposition and ignorance just won't do.How many ends are there on a stick?
I wasn't in the land buying department, so I don't want to go spouting numbers that I just can't substantiate - but it's safe to say it would be in the tens of millions. My old team used to re-develop quite a lot of old pubs with adjacent car parks, it was a good size for what they needed. If you took the Chetwynd Arms at Brocton for example of size only (there are no plans to redevelop as far as I know!), that would cost in the region of £300k-£350k.
The huge cost (and time) of redeveloping is the services. As each of the providers (Openreach/Western Power/National Gas etc.) have their own requirements for alterations and diversions, it can cost thousands just to understand the location of the existing services and get quotes to do something with them. On a pub development I was undertaking, there was a BT telegraph pole within the grounds. We were quoted over £1k, just for Openreach to provide a quote to move it.
How will the halfwits cope?
Oh yeah, that's right, they'll just ignore it and carry on regardless...