Save Ringo Starr's former home?

  peter99co 12:30 02 Jan 2011

Put the needs of people first?

click here

Residents have been fully involved in developing the proposals and have shown they want decent homes to replace houses which have long passed their lifespan.

"They are telling us that they are absolutely sick of the delays and the conditions they have to live in. They want the city council to demolish these properties as soon as possible so that they can get on with their lives."

I think they should get on with it as well.

  Bingalau 12:51 02 Jan 2011

As a Liverpudlian myself, I am heartily sick of all the ballyhoo about the "Beatles". They are just a money making option that we don't need. They have not done an awful lot for the city themselves except for Paul McCartney. As for Ringo well, I would bar him from the city for the way he ran it down. I feel the same about that awful woman who runs the quiz on the BBC. I can't bring myself to mention her name even. Then there's that Cilla Black, another one who couldn't wait to run off to somewhere where the money was more available. It beats me why the airport was named after John Lennon too. What was wrong with naming it after Ken Dodd or Arthur Askey or any of the numerous others who have done a lot more for this city than John Lennon ever did..?

  GANDALF <|:-)> 13:12 02 Jan 2011

'Mr Shapps said the house was considered by many as a "culturally important building".' Ringo Starr is/was a drummer and was not terribly good at it. He lived there for 3 months and would not even remember the place. For the dimwit Shapps to state that the building is 'culturally important' is an indication of how out of touch he really is and does make one ponder on what basis or experience made him suitable to be employed as Housing Minister.


  sunnystaines 13:55 02 Jan 2011

on the news it was a street of run down old slum style terrace houses. i would knock them down and build decent ones.

  Bingalau 15:37 02 Jan 2011

sunnystaines. That is the general idea and also the general consensus of opinion. But for interference by people who think that the sun shines out of the rectums of the "Beatles".

GANDALF<|:-)> has hit the nail on the head.

  peter99co 16:43 02 Jan 2011

Grant Shapps may not be aware of the fact that we have consulted extensively with local residents over these plans and the overwhelming majority are in favour of them.

  Bingalau 21:40 02 Jan 2011

Liverpool has always been on the map. It was always a very progressive city. It has always produced famous people in all walks of life. The Battle of the Atlantic was fought and won, mainly from Liverpool. It was the main port pre war, for the transport of emigrants to the New World of the USA. The worlds first railway was run from Liverpool. It has the finest football team in the World "Everton" as well as the oldest Swimming club in the World "Everton Swimming Association". There are many more iconic things about the city, far too numerous to enter here.

The Beatles were just lucky to be at their best when the much maligned media were looking to brighten up the country during the post war depression. But there were much better artistes before and since them. (by the way I never mentioned not liking them) I just think some of them let the city of Liverpool down badly. They dabbled in drugs and this probably led to other youngsters also dabbling in drugs. They were as badly behaved as most groups of that and more recent era's. But in their case these things have been conveniently forgotten in the pursuit of money.

I agree with Gandalf and his remarks about the person being a dimwit. The property is unfit for anything. If any single person, including Ringo wants it preserving maybe he should put up the cash to restore the whole street. But I bet he is not the least bit interested. So why should the taxpayers of Liverpool pay for its restoration?

  Forum Editor 00:18 03 Jan 2011

Except make its name known to millions of people all over the world who had previously never heard of it.

I have never been a great fan of the Beatles, but to dismiss them as 'just a money making option that we don't need' strikes me as a little prejudiced, to say the least.

Go to places like Tokyo, New York, Beijing, Sydney etc., and you'll find hardly anyone who has heard of Ken Dodd or Arthur Askey, but everyone knows the Beatles, and they know which city they came from. They were Liverpudlians as much as anyone else who comes from the city. The homes of both John Lennon and Paul McCartney are owned by the National trust, and are visited by tourists from all over the world - tourists who presumably leave sizeable amounts of their money in the city's economy.

  Bingalau 10:46 03 Jan 2011

O.K. folks let's agree to disagree. Some of the music of the group I do like, but they are boosted up way beyond what they deserve.

There are no nodding donkeys at Formby now as far as I know, but just down the coast at Crosby there are numerous "Iron Men" stuck in the sand which are supposed to be artistic. To me they are ugly obtrusions to the scenery. But tourists also come and take photos galore of them. Why? I have no idea.

Japanese and other nationality tourists take thousands of photo's of other places in the city and also of other cities buildings and palaces. But putting the Beatles up in the "Royal" bracket is what some in the city of Liverpool are trying to do in the pursuit of money. That is just beyond belief.

Now if they started to publicise the deeds of a certain doctor who won two Victoria Crosses I would feel much happier. (I wonder what happened to his abode/abodes?

  Bingalau 10:53 03 Jan 2011

Yes I do know Noel Chavasse wasn't born in Liverpool, but we regard him as an outstanding Liverpudlian.

  Forum Editor 11:45 03 Jan 2011

Whether you like the Beatles' music or not you can't deny the fact that at their peak they were the world's most famous band - people all over the planet bought their music, knew their faces, and probably knew the name of the city they came from.

It's not always easy to appreciate just how popular they were until you travel around a bit. In New York John Lennon was almost more famous than he was in this country, and even today there's a massive following for him and for the music. You can't go into Central park in the Summer without hearing at least one person with a guitar putting on a Lennon/McCartney tribute show.

Beauty, as they say, is in the eye of the beholder, and Liverpool is certainly a beautiful city in many ways. It has its ugly side however, as do most big cities. It's a classic example of an historic city that has been through changes, and one of them is its emergence of the home of some incredibly popular musicians. Liverpudlians should be proud of that, and not agonise over whether A is a more deserving person than B when it comes to recognition.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Samsung Galaxy A8 review: Hands-on

Illustrator Juan Esteban Rodriguez on creating highly detailed official film posters for Star Wars…

iMac Pro review

Comment savoir si quelqu'un a bloqué votre numéro de téléphone ?