
Are you a QOTWer? Do you want to start a thread that isn't a direct answer to the current QOTW? Then this place, gentle poster, is your friend.
( , Sun 1 Apr 2001, 1:00)
« Go Back | Popular

So, apart from gloating over the fact that a right wing think tank is recommending that the government enforces gentrification of the nice bits of the country, are any of you lot looking forward to the Paralympics?
Have any of you got tickets to see anything?
Do you think that, given Channel 4's woeful record on sports coverage, their pathetic attempts will cause widespread public condemnation?
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 12:51, 129 replies, latest was 13 years ago)

I haven't got tickets for anything but I'm going to watch some of the wheelchair rugby.
And Channel 4's Cricket coverage was pretty good wasn't it?
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 12:55, Reply)

but I'm not sure how it works.
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 12:59, Reply)

They also armour their wheelchairs
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:00, Reply)

www.zimbio.com/pictures/vQP0rZtr3ic/Paralympics+Day+6+Wheelchair+Rugby/8zQO5CRU-6j/Ryley+Batt
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:04, Reply)

still, no fear of collapsing it, not like they can fuck themselves up too much more.
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:06, Reply)

( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:08, Reply)

fucking cyborgs. THIS FAR AND NO FURTHER!!!
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:11, Reply)

how are they supposed to stamp on each other?
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:10, Reply)

they just roll the ball back behind them for a teammate. How does that work, then? What if it gets tangled in their wheels? What if their legs don't work.
It doesn't sound very well thought through, mumps.
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:16, Reply)

Why don't these people just roll over and die like nature intended?
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:25, Reply)

No, no tickets, and probably yes. CHannel four is a bit rubbish from memory.
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 12:57, Reply)

I expect the one with tourettes to win the high dive.
"Here comes the plucky British lad now. He steadies himself on the edge of the board, prepares to lauch himself into a triple somersault with pike and half twist, and..."
"Piss cunt waaaaaaaaaaaaaaank" *splash*
"Oh, faultless delivery there."
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 12:59, Reply)

ROFLCOPTER!!!!!
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:02, Reply)

( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:22, Reply)

By getting some eco-nappies or some shit.
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:25, Reply)

( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:26, Reply)

( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:34, Reply)

and then a move to Lidl's own brand nappies which are cheap and rather good.
There. I am so proud of my contribution to the nappy subthread.
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 14:02, Reply)

Why Cherokee hair, of course.
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:28, Reply)

I mean, you know that scene in the Shining when the lift doors open ...
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:29, Reply)

i care not one jot for the paralolympics
I won't be watching so don't care
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:23, Reply)

"People in social housing are poor and therefore they don't want to live in nice places, because the supermarkets in nice places are too expensive for them. They should all fuck off to the slums where they build Aldis and Lidls"
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:27, Reply)

living in Kensington, what?
/The problem is that in a remarkably rare occurance, I can see both sides of the argument with this one. However, since it's a right-wing think tank proposing it I'm going to have to hate it.
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:30, Reply)

it's a waste and will actually prevent other scroungers getting a free house. the lefties should love it.
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:31, Reply)

The whole point of this is that the houses are owned by the government, which is why they are proposing selling them and making a profit.
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:34, Reply)

than move a family to more reasonable and appropriate accomodation thus freeing up some capital? Seems a bit cruel for a hand ringer like yourself
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:36, Reply)

no, really.
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:37, Reply)

Impementaion is unfortunately another issue
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:39, Reply)

The idea has some merit, but is not without problems.
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:41, Reply)

The principle is the problem, really. As in, not thought through. The "hard aspects" ie the pure financial transation itself, is eminently sensible. But the reality is that the associated costs (both social and financial) would probably be huge.
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:50, Reply)

This isn't councils paying private landlords to house tenants.
This is about council-owned properties. They don't cost high rents regardless of where they are, because the councils own them. This is about selling property that might be worth shitloads because of its location and using the money to build or buy more property in cheaper areas.
Like many of these ideas, it has some merit, but some really fucking stupid aspects, too.
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:34, Reply)

it's just that Street A is in a nice area, but Street B is 50 miles away and in the fucking horrendous place and anyone living there will be forever condemned to a shit life with no prospects because although they are happy to build a million flats on Street B, they aren't willing to provide enough schools, hospitals or general transport infrastructure to support Street B.
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:37, Reply)

( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:38, Reply)

as everybody living on it is a fucking stockbroker.
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:39, Reply)

is what you meant to say
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:43, Reply)

very different to your mung bean spitting tirade of frothy middle class guilt.
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:37, Reply)

mainly because i don't really believe there is a pure reason why two identical properties in the same town can have a 50% price difference.
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:39, Reply)

If you are going to get stabbed everyday outside one house then it will be less attractive to a buyer.
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:40, Reply)

it simply "is".
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:41, Reply)

The "fucking stupid" aspects are the ones Al mentions above. You can't achieve what you're talking about by moving someone around the corner, it would be miles away. Different schools, no social mix any more, etc, etc. It would work if you were selling a property that was valuable to build something literally round the corner in the same area, but we tried that 50 years ago. Sell housing stock to build inner-city high rises. they definitely worked absolutely brilliantly and there's been no problems at all assoicated with that, wouldn't you agree?
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:44, Reply)

And they're identical and too close to even smoke a fag between the two.
My assumptions on how it would work if it was managed well would be something like this.
Sell houses on street A as they're empty in expensive streets. Do them up a little sell them for a profit
Spend that building new houses on vacant land or derelict sites B.
Now the council has a larger stock of housing but with the same overall value. Keep doing that with the assumption that selling at a profit to build more stock is the way you'll do it.
Eventually you have a large financial incentive to increase the house values of sites B, so refurbishing a school or playground in a bad area, subsidising bus routes street cleaning and policing in those areas starts making more economic sense.
But that means it'll have to be run correctly for years...
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:58, Reply)

And that still doesn't change the fact that it's retrospective - you're moving families from nice areas to shit areas with the promise that the area will get better in X years time.
moving people from a good area to a bad one will also most likely decrease the chances of stuff like the children doing well at school, thus perpetuating those family through multiple generations of poverty etc etc
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 14:02, Reply)

or move out. And replacing them with new council tennants who are currently on a waiting list or in hostels or something.
If it was an eviction or relocation style thing I'd be dead against it.
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 14:04, Reply)

Because there will be pressure for the results to be seen more quickly.
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 14:06, Reply)

Over 20 to 30 years you could change the face of the social housing in a council by proper property managment and smart manipulation of the market.
However they won't, because a council doesn't think on those timescales.
It's ridiculous as well because lets face it any councils property portfolio is probably their biggest asset if they were more flexible with it, they could make more money.
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 14:10, Reply)

just for the day though. i am not someone who likes tents, which will not surprise you.
really fucked off, whilst i am whining - was meant to be in new york, got told a couple of weeks ago i couldn't go because of urgent work thing. fair enough, that's life. except that work thing settled late fri afternoon. so i missed NY. humph.
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 14:33, Reply)

and this reminded you too much of your vagina.
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 14:34, Reply)

( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 14:41, Reply)

ha, it had neon pink gel in it for the hen-do pics. perhaps this was not immediately apparent.
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 14:42, Reply)

I really, really like American Pale Ales.
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 14:36, Reply)

These people want a weatherspoons not an itlian deli, they want bus shelters they can piss in not scultures of local heros, they want to be able to loot Sports Direct not Fortnum and Mason.
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:30, Reply)

Bollocks.
They did this in the 50's and the result was Basildon. I've never seen a fucker even crack a smile there.
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:50, Reply)

In the attic, above the stables, in the lodge. It's the new class of property greedy cunts who despise the workers. Oh no, we can't let a poor person (one without a Range Rover) anywhere near us. It might make the value of our property fall by 2p. Cunts, the lot of them. Who's going to char for them and cut their grass? Not me, I'm far too lazy.
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:35, Reply)

If your affordable housing is too far from anywhere no-one in it will be working, because it'll cost them too much to travel to work and they'll be better off on benefits.
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:58, Reply)

I'm drinking a can of Diet Lilt. Does this make me gay?
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 14:07, Reply)

that makes you gay.
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 14:08, Reply)

It's just I've got five more cans to get through and I didn't want to end up like some sort of superfag.
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 14:14, Reply)

( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 14:17, Reply)

I haven't had a Lilt in years. I used to really like Lilt. It was a "totally tropical taste"
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 14:13, Reply)

so i did some work instead.
client has leak on ceiling. the stain looks EXACTLY like a cock. i have been laughing for about 10 mins.
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 14:33, Reply)

*you're* the grown-up.
How was V?
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 14:35, Reply)

and laughing at how out of tune poor old ian brown was. not that he seemed to care, mind.
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 14:40, Reply)

i'd prefer to stand in the piss-stinking toilet queue than see her.
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 14:44, Reply)

www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/aug/20/rare-earth-metals-resources-landfill-waste
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 14:24, Reply)

Can't be bothered to read through so I don't know if there’s a similar answer, but I have been thinking about going to the Polympics, just to see the Olympic park, last time I went there it was a building site.
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 14:33, Reply)

( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 14:54, Reply)

oh blimey
that may be the most popular comment the popular board has ever seen... is dozer 2.0-ing you now?
i want to feel v sorry for hercules, but i just don't like hamsters. they irritate me.
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 14:56, Reply)

Unless he deleted it.
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 15:02, Reply)

EDIT
www.b3ta.com/questions/offtopic/post1707842
This post. If you can't see it, he hates you.
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 15:05, Reply)

people have feelings you know
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 15:06, Reply)

but hamsters? rodents are not pets. they are rodents.
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 15:09, Reply)

( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 15:12, Reply)
« Go Back | Reply To This »