Phil Perry Posted February 28, 2016 Posted February 28, 2016 This was London in 1944. . . . [ATTACH]47860._xfImport[/ATTACH] This is London Now. [ATTACH]47861._xfImport[/ATTACH] See the difference ? ? ? ? Yep, you've got it. No more of those filthy Pigeons infesting the place and crapping all over everything. >
bexrbetter Posted March 12, 2016 Posted March 12, 2016 thats what happens when you have immigration, the Chinese eat anything!
Jabiru7252 Posted March 12, 2016 Posted March 12, 2016 I lived in London 35 years ago and one could see the decay then.
Phil Perry Posted March 12, 2016 Author Posted March 12, 2016 I cannot fathom why a lot of immigrants particularly want to live in London. It is very expensive to live there. Eg. An "Average" 3 bed detatched residence, such as a "traditional" semi-detached located in most Staffordshire conurbations would be priced at around £135 - 165K. In ANY London suburb the same property will be priced at around £450,000. I saw a one bedroom single level apartment ( here known as a "Flat" ) sell for £525K last week . . . . .? No parking space, no garden or any greenspace around it. . ., nowt. Bupkiss. And yet immigrants from Eastern Europe / Africa / Middle East, flock there in their thousands. . . . ? Mystery. ( unless of course they are living on Bennies and the accomodation is supplied FOC also ? ) London is a craphole. I do my best to avoid at all times. Young indiginous working folk have no chance to get onto the housing ladder there. . .impossible.
Gnarly Gnu Posted March 12, 2016 Posted March 12, 2016 mystery. ( unless of course they are living on Bennies and the accomodation is supplied FOC also ?. Yes, welfare. They are receivers (and not just the ones kissing the dirt). End the socialist welfare state and it would almost end the illegal immigration racket overnight without having to build a single fence. If not by decree it is destined to end before long anyway when the cash runs out.
Yenn Posted March 13, 2016 Posted March 13, 2016 I lived near London during the war and what you don't see in those photos is the other great change. In 1944 al the building in London were black and your clothes were black after a few hours there. Now the old sandstone buildings are clean and sandstone colour in the case of the old buildings. All because coal fires were outlawed. I remember a smog in 1955 when I was in the army in a Western suburb of London theat was so thick that we couldn't go to work. People died from that smog. Anyway it isn't much different in Sydney. Get on a train and play spot the Aussie. I bet you won't see many.
Jabiru7252 Posted March 13, 2016 Posted March 13, 2016 When I was in London, 35 years ago it was common to see 10 or 15 people living in the same house. Mainly from India and Pakistan, they were living in England to take advantage of what it has to offer. Often I hear people ask why are their so many Asian and Indian Doctors etc. It's because they come here seeking all the wonderful opportunities while 'we' having become so used to welfare sit on our bums and watch TV and get stoned. Like it or not, 'we' are bludgers unwilling to work or study hard to become successful. (For those of you, like me who have worked hard, studied and tried to better yourselves, consider yourselves excluded from the reference to 'we'). When Australia opens its borders to the rest of the world (it's on the table) then we'll really see strife here. Welfare in Australia was designed in the fifties when we could afford it. Now it's gone over-board and we cannot afford it.
Phil Perry Posted March 13, 2016 Author Posted March 13, 2016 I lived near London during the war and what you don't see in those photos is the other great change. In 1944 al the building in London were black and your clothes were black after a few hours there. Now the old sandstone buildings are clean and sandstone colour in the case of the old buildings. All because coal fires were outlawed.I remember a smog in 1955 when I was in the army in a Western suburb of London theat was so thick that we couldn't go to work. People died from that smog. Anyway it isn't much different in Sydney. Get on a train and play spot the Aussie. I bet you won't see many. I remember that London Fog mate ! My folks and I went to a show in the West end in 1959, after which we jumped into a black cab outside the theatre. We had only travelled a couple of hundred yards and the driver told us he wasn't going any further as he couldn't see a damn thing ! I can't remember if he charged Dad for the short trip in the smog, but it was awful. I had a hankie tied over my mouth and when we got back to the hotel it was yellow where I'd been trying to breathe through it ! ! Happy days eh ?
Phil Perry Posted March 13, 2016 Author Posted March 13, 2016 When I was in London, 35 years ago it was common to see 10 or 15 people living in the same house. Mainly from India and Pakistan, they were living in England to take advantage of what it has to offer. Often I hear people ask why are their so many Asian and Indian Doctors etc. It's because they come here seeking all the wonderful opportunities while 'we' having become so used to welfare sit on our bums and watch TV and get stoned. Like it or not, 'we' are bludgers unwilling to work or study hard to become successful. (For those of you, like me who have worked hard, studied and tried to better yourselves, consider yourselves excluded from the reference to 'we'). When Australia opens its borders to the rest of the world (it's on the table) then we'll really see strife here. Welfare in Australia was designed in the fifties when we could afford it. Now it's gone over-board and we cannot afford it. Well The UK is, so I am told, around 3 trillion quid in debt. . . .so I guess borrowing a few more billion to give away to spongers won't make much diffference Eh ?. . . .Until the "Magic Money Tree" suddenly disappears ! ! !
Jabiru7252 Posted March 13, 2016 Posted March 13, 2016 Holy Moly, In my previous post I used 'their' instead of 'there'. How embarrassing. Being immeasurably clever this is totally out of character for me.
Phil Perry Posted March 13, 2016 Author Posted March 13, 2016 Holy Moly, In my previous post I used 'their' instead of 'there'. How embarrassing. Being immeasurably clever this is totally out of character for me. No sweat cobber . . . I dunno if the Spellofascistas are about today,. . . .we have one on one of my favourite blogs ( goingpostal.net ) who had the utter cheek to pick ONE spelling error out of a wonderfully constructed 850 word piece about Galileo and Copernicus from one of my most eddificationalised and erudite literary friends in Croatia ( Schrodinger's Cat ) check it out. . . [url=http://tinyurl.com/glz6l6l][/url] http://tinyurl.com/glz6l6l In his header piece entitled "Science and Authority" ; he spelled "Heels" as HEALS . . .more than likely a typo, considering the lofty literary record of the man ( Person ? Mythical Cat ? ) I also sometimes have this problem; ausated typing too quickly because, as you are aware MY selping is prefect all of teh time; as is my garmer. ( PS Phil; when you say "Immeasurably" are you including Imperial as well as metric immeasurability ? . . .jus wunderin' )
Phil Perry Posted March 13, 2016 Author Posted March 13, 2016 Interesting bit of news form that wonderful paragon of civilisation- SAUDI ARABIA. [ATTACH]47865._xfImport[/ATTACH] No Comment on this,. . . but I watched a video last week of a leading Saudi Cleric explaining why planet Earth Cannot possibly be spherical.
Marty_d Posted March 24, 2016 Posted March 24, 2016 I watched a video last week of a leading Saudi Cleric explaining why planet Earth Cannot possibly be spherical. He's right. It's an oblate spheroid with the equatorial diameter being 42.77km more than a diameter running through the poles.
Phil Perry Posted March 24, 2016 Author Posted March 24, 2016 He's right. It's an oblate spheroid with the equatorial diameter being 42.77km more than a diameter running through the poles. This is also correct Sir,. . . . but oblate though it is. . . . and however one may sheikh it all about. . . .this does not disqualify it's physical, planetary generality as a spheroid. :-)
Phil Perry Posted April 16, 2016 Author Posted April 16, 2016 [ATTACH]47893._xfImport[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]47894._xfImport[/ATTACH]
willedoo Posted April 16, 2016 Posted April 16, 2016 He's right. It's an oblate spheroid with the equatorial diameter being 42.77km more than a diameter running through the poles. The Saudi scientists are right also. Women are mammals. I know. I've seen the evidence.
Phil Perry Posted April 16, 2016 Author Posted April 16, 2016 [ATTACH]47895._xfImport[/ATTACH] Hero ? I met him twice,. . .came over as a really good bloke. . .
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now