Pier collapses into Southampton Water (From Daily Echo)

stmarysmush wrote:
So ? Anyone care ?

Shoong wrote:
Piers are just simply dangerous. Knock them all down.

thesotonsaint wrote:

Shoong wrote:
Piers are just simply dangerous. Knock them all down.

Cheers for that totally moronic statement Shoong, I am sure Mr Morgan will be impressed with that, although, personally I think Simon Cowell is more dangerous. I wouldnt mind checking out Amanda's pontoons! My random statement, all planes could crash, ban air travel!

Linesman wrote:
Now there is no Iconic building in Southampton to rival the Spinnaker Tower. Would it be possible to replace the Royal Pier with the Titanic Museum?

Family Man wrote:
I think this is symptomatic of the way that Southampton is as a whole... scruffy, unkempt, badly maintained to the point of dereliction, and , from the perspective of the public, any entertainment value went years ago... and the only thing that is sparking any passing interest is its demise as it slips below the surface of the Solent!

Spot O'Bother wrote:
I liked the grab a granny night, but not too sorry to see it go. Any suggestions for something to take it's place?

Stillness wrote:

Spot O'Bother wrote:
I liked the grab a granny night, but not too sorry to see it go. Any suggestions for something to take it's place?

An ice rink???

Zeo wrote:
maybe we should all chip in and buy it and then rebuild it lol

Family Man wrote:
I think this is comparable to the West Pier at Brighton, albeit a much smaller version. It was once "iconic", extremely popular and very well used. Over years it declined as no one thought to maintain it properly, although happy to extract every penny of profit but not to re-invest it. Eventually the years take their toll, and the cost of bringing it back into use becomes astronomical (a classic case of a "stitch in time"). In the meantime, the local authority and owners have dithered and obfuscated (repeated feasibility studies, "grand plans" and the occasional proferred hope (like a grant) only to see it dashed...) and against the wishes of any pressure groups or those who would like to see it preserved as part of the local heritage. Eventually it becomes more and more of an eyesore, and either burns or falls down.... One could be forgiven for thinking that it is all part of some deliberate strategy, if of course, those who make the decisions were that intelligent!

StEmmosfire wrote:

Family Man wrote:
I think this is comparable to the West Pier at Brighton, albeit a much smaller version. It was once "iconic", extremely popular and very well used. Over years it declined as no one thought to maintain it properly, although happy to extract every penny of profit but not to re-invest it. Eventually the years take their toll, and the cost of bringing it back into use becomes astronomical (a classic case of a "stitch in time"). In the meantime, the local authority and owners have dithered and obfuscated (repeated feasibility studies, "grand plans" and the occasional proferred hope (like a grant) only to see it dashed...) and against the wishes of any pressure groups or those who would like to see it preserved as part of the local heritage. Eventually it becomes more and more of an eyesore, and either burns or falls down.... One could be forgiven for thinking that it is all part of some deliberate strategy, if of course, those who make the decisions were that intelligent!

Could you have written any more?

Spot O'Bother wrote:
I liked the grab a granny night, but not too sorry to see it go. Any suggestions for something to take it's place?

Westsidestory wrote:
It only needs the Refinery and power station, not to mention the rest of the 'Filth' emitting chimneys, to follow suit now, to return things to their once pleasant state. I used to like to sit on the end of the pier as a lad, catching a few flounders for tea, and watch the schools of Porpoises chasing the huge shoals of Whiting up river, to ambush them in the shallows at Redbridge.

southy wrote:
the royal pier need to be confiscated from abpj, ever since abp had taken over the pier they have done nothing to protect it. they have just left it to rot. they knew to well that the piles and beams needed to be re-tarred after the fire.

forest hump wrote:

Westsidestory wrote:
It only needs the Refinery and power station, not to mention the rest of the 'Filth' emitting chimneys, to follow suit now, to return things to their once pleasant state. I used to like to sit on the end of the pier as a lad, catching a few flounders for tea, and watch the schools of Porpoises chasing the huge shoals of Whiting up river, to ambush them in the shallows at Redbridge.

So, I presume you do not need gasoline or electricity? Go and live in a cave, or perhaps the moon! Oh! sorry. No flounders or whiting in caves or moon. No, I guess you travel everywhere on a bike and are self-sufficient for energy. No gas or electric bills and no car to run or maintain?

Adrian Smith wrote:

southy wrote: the royal pier need to be confiscated from abpj, ever since abp had taken over the pier they have done nothing to protect it. they have just left it to rot. they knew to well that the piles and beams needed to be re-tarred after the fire.

Thatcher's fault?

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

Adrian Smith wrote:

southy wrote: the royal pier need to be confiscated from abpj, ever since abp had taken over the pier they have done nothing to protect it. they have just left it to rot. they knew to well that the piles and beams needed to be re-tarred after the fire.

Thatcher's fault?

You are mixing up Peerage with Pier age.

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

Adrian Smith wrote:

southy wrote: the royal pier need to be confiscated from abpj, ever since abp had taken over the pier they have done nothing to protect it. they have just left it to rot. they knew to well that the piles and beams needed to be re-tarred after the fire.

Thatcher's fault?

You are mixing up Peerage with Pier age.

stmarysmush wrote:

Linesman wrote:
Now there is no Iconic building in Southampton to rival the Spinnaker Tower. Would it be possible to replace the Royal Pier with the Titanic Museum?

lol......wish i had said that first.

southy wrote:
stay local if i was you i would read what happen in guatemala city only a few days ago, even lo this is a large scale off what nature can do to balance it self, and is very unlikely we would get it here on the same scale, but we do get them here to where they can range from a few inches to a few feet across. and its all due to the sub soil being washed though a under laying bed. we have a gravel bed right though this area and when you cut though a gravel bed and dont seal the edge where its been cut though, it then gives some where for the subsoil to go wash though, has in our case straight into the river. i did put up a link to let you and others read on what happen in guatemala city (a sinkhole) so before you make your self look a bigger fool than you all ready have done, i suggest you read up on it, and find out the reasons why these sinkhole accures.

stay local wrote:

southy wrote:
stay local if i was you i would read what happen in guatemala city only a few days ago, even lo this is a large scale off what nature can do to balance it self, and is very unlikely we would get it here on the same scale, but we do get them here to where they can range from a few inches to a few feet across. and its all due to the sub soil being washed though a under laying bed. we have a gravel bed right though this area and when you cut though a gravel bed and dont seal the edge where its been cut though, it then gives some where for the subsoil to go wash though, has in our case straight into the river. i did put up a link to let you and others read on what happen in guatemala city (a sinkhole) so before you make your self look a bigger fool than you all ready have done, i suggest you read up on it, and find out the reasons why these sinkhole accures.

As usual a complete side step, it is a bit like comparing a lightening strike to and earthquake.

Come on where and when was the 200 mile land slip, yes, we know about the sink hole. But that was not related to your initial comment; once again you are clutching at straws to defend you ludicrous statements.

Tell us where and when there was a two hundred mile landslip; just saying I saw it in national geographic magazine is not sufficient or perhaps you are mistaken. Perhaps the location moved to Guatemala, (they are only about 1000 miles apart so by your logic the same thing which only took several years to get to each end) it could a bit like your statement where you claim Rotterdam is moving inland.

Please hurry as I am thinking of compiling a list of Southy’s claims to add to any of you posts just think….. Missing ice rinks moving, cities, landslips, air rifles and the rest it is not really a record to be proud of.

stay local wrote:
My goodness Southy we agree on something, it is hard to discredit you , mainly as you do it so well for your self.

To recover your fallen glory simply tell us the exact date and place and name of the 200 mile landslip you say occurred, so this claim can be verified, I can not find any information of a landslip of this nature, I can find one stated to have got to 200miles per hour, 200 tons of soil etc. All reference materials say the St Helens slip was the largest; none talk of a flat ground slip over a long distance.


So give us

The date of this great land slip


The place of this great land slip

So you can prove me wrong, rather than claiming it could be a sink hole in another country.

southy wrote:

stay local wrote: My goodness Southy we agree on something, it is hard to discredit you , mainly as you do it so well for your self. To recover your fallen glory simply tell us the exact date and place and name of the 200 mile landslip you say occurred, so this claim can be verified, I can not find any information of a landslip of this nature, I can find one stated to have got to 200miles per hour, 200 tons of soil etc. All reference materials say the St Helens slip was the largest; none talk of a flat ground slip over a long distance. So give us The date of this great land slip The place of this great land slip So you can prove me wrong, rather than claiming it could be a sink hole in another country.

still twisting words stay local, but keep going, look at the word AWAY i did not say it was 200 miles off land slip like your trying to twist it into, i said it cause a land slip 200 miles AWAY. i will repeat what i said in the first place. the land slip in brazil was cause by the chopping down of trees on a plain, and 200 miles away on a mountain side after a wetter season then normal the land slip. now i told you where to look it up, the rest is up to you to go searching. i did not say in any place how big the land slip was i just siad it happen 200 miles away from the cause. and st helen mt was the largest land silp in the usa, and not the world.