Archive for The Motor Forum "We are mature men in the highest cadres of our careers"
 


       The Motor Forum Forum Index -> General
..

Gated communities.

They're discussing this on the news and some are violently opposed to them. To be honest I can see the appeal, people want to live in a nice place and the thought that there are security guards wandering about is nice. Some studies show that gated communities don't reduce crime but I think I'd need convincing of that. It surely must help to live in a nice place with security guards about.

I think that maybe words like segregation and phrases like social exclusion are diverting from a reality that some live a life including routine low level crime and continually victimise others. It's sad that we need locked gates and security guards to make us feel that there's less chance of our houses being burgled, or cars being stolen and our property basically being available to any scumbag who wants to vandalise or steal it but that's just how it is for many people and if a gate and a security guard is available I can't blame anyone for wanting that.

Maybe instead of implying that those living in gated communities are born again fascist imperialists lording it over the starving and oppressed masses the likes of the socialist housing trust (or whatever) should instead campaign for improved living conditions for all. If people felt safer they maybe wouldn't feel the need to move to a gated community. Sorting the quality of life and law and order problems that ordinary communities face and improve the lot of all would be better than hurling silly abuse at people who just want a better life for themselves and their loved ones IMHO.

What-ya-think?
Alf McQueef

I think: I would always live somewhere where they were not needed, personally - it's a free country and much of it is pretty safe.

However, if people want to live in gated communities they have absolutely every right to do so. We don't owe a duty to society to make our stuff easy to steal or damage. And the people who can afford to live in these communities pay vast amounts of tax - it's the government's job to use it correctly and to form policy to make the underlying problems go away.
Humphrey The Pug

I don't think I would be keen on living in such a place but if someone is rich enough and wants to it is up to them.

People who have a problem about these sort of things and like to make a big deal are generally jealous because what possible harm are these rich people doing.

St. Georges Hill is near me, John Terry and various other footballers and rich people live there, Cliff Richard used to live there. It is gated and has security guards on each entrance and you need to buzz to get in. I have been in there once and it is fucking huge and so are the houses, the money there is obscene but fair play to them.
Twelfth Monkey

Can't say that it's an idea that I care for.  I think that the risks of burglary etc are massively lower than some people clearly think, and it sends all the wrong messages, not only to the 'outside world', but to the children brought up in such an unnatural environment.  (EDIT regarding HTP's post.  A gated house is one thing.  A gated community (sic) quite another.)

J G Ballard's Running Wild is an interesting, fictional take on one set of possible consequences.
..

I don't really see what's that unnatural about it. There'll be other children about to play with and they'll go to school and do the usual out of school things. The only difference is that there's some big metal gates up the road meaning that people have to be expected to get in and there are security guards.

BTW - Someone had squeezed past my car during the night taking all the rain off the drivers side rear quarter and there was a hand print in the rain on the bonnet, they'd possibly put their hand there to steady themselves as they passed my car. There were no obvious signs of damage and nothing missing or damaged out the back that I could see but I'm not happy about it (someone wandering around out the back) and if a gate and a security guard would make me feel better, and it would BTW, then I can't criticise anyone who can afford it moving to one of these places. At least they probably not wondering what's going on when their security light goes on at 2am.

The risk of actual burglary may not be that great, security doors and windows all around, PIR security light and a decent alarm fitted, but little things affect life quality.
franki68

Twelfth Monkey wrote:
Can't say that it's an idea that I care for.  I think that the risks of burglary etc are massively lower than some people clearly think, and it sends all the wrong messages, not only to the 'outside world', but to the children brought up in such an unnatural environment.  (EDIT regarding HTP's post.  A gated house is one thing.  A gated community (sic) quite another.)

J G Ballard's Running Wild is an interesting, fictional take on one set of possible consequences.


I think that depends on where you live.Some areas have very low crime rates,around here it unusual not to have been burgled.
I think it would be a sad state of affairs to have gated communities but there is no doubt it will come.
I have often thought if I was to get into property development gated communities are the future.They are common place in the USA and I have experienced living in one briefly..but what was really weird was the place was massive and within the gated community was another gated community for those that were obscenely rich as opposed to those that were just rich.
What america does we seem to eventually follow in many areas.
Twelfth Monkey

alan wrote:
I don't really see what's that unnatural about it. There'll be other children about to play with and they'll go to school and do the usual out of school things. The only difference is that there's some big metal gates up the road meaning that people have to be expected to get in and there are security guards.


I take it that you aren't being ironic?

The psychological differences are huge, you don't need to be a rocket (or indeed a social) scientist to figure that out.  What fundamental message about the outside world does this send to the formative psyches within?
Homo erectus

Those with experience of South Africa (Eff1?) will probably have first-hand experience of gated communities - to me, it's a poor solution to the problem of crime and is part of the breakdown of society.  Now, I know it's a big ask, but the source of crime being dealt with is more useful.

Agree with Simon, the lack of balance people would get living in such a community would outweigh the barely tangiable benefits (ergo if you are worth robbin' then they'll just wait until you eventually come out, South Africa stylie).
Nice Guy Eddie

I think it all depends on where you live. I can see the appeal in London as the crime rates are so high in areas that are still hugely expensive so it provides you with the basic social requirements like safety and the knowledge that your assets are as safe as can be. I had a friend who lived in a gated block in Brixton and to be fair if he'd parked his flash car outside it would be stripped by morning.
The concept of places like St Georges Hill holds no appeal to me as the sort that would live on there aren't really the type I would get along with, after all I think we all prefer a diverse community.
..

12th - I honestly don't know. I'd imagine that the subtleties of this would probably pass a lot of the younger children by and that it'd only be when they're older that they'd notice and that they'd need to be older still to think about the reasons why and by that time maybe they'd be old enough to think about it for themselves and talk about it with their parents and others. I'd hope that parents would be responsible and raise balanced children, unfortunately increased wealth doesn't always mean better parenting skills, I expect.

I don't know if there've ever been any studies on that aspect of it, it's an interesting approach to look at it from.

If I had a family I'd want to provide the very best I could for them and I therefore find it very hard to criticise those, for example who live in a gated community in Durham at Winyard, footballers and the like live there.

I agree with others though, as I said at the start of this, the way forward is surely not to have security (or the illusion of it but even piece of mind is worth it sometimes even if it is an illusion) for the rich only. What we should be looking at is increasing the quality of life of all.
Twelfth Monkey

alan wrote:
I'd imagine that the subtleties of this would probably pass a lot of the younger children by


Alan, you'd be staggered about how much children take in.  Far, far more than you'd think until you have them.  They are also incapable of expressing themselves anything like as fully as would be ideal, so tend to wrestle with things internally.  It's therefore of even greater importance that even subtle things need to be considered; not that caging the outside world is too subtle a signal!
michael

My parents live in a gated community and I don't have a problem with them. The security is desirable on account of their paranoia over the issue having lived in Nigeria and the US.
..

I admit that I don't know as I've never visited one of these places. I've driven past the one in Durham and that's as close as I've gotten.

I think your right in that it's something that should be considered but you'd have to balance that point of view against the more negative aspects of living in an area with (possibly) higher crime which could also affect a child's outlook. If I did have children I'd probably need to have been careful how I'd acted this morning as checking around the car and property might have lead to questions and maybe even bad dreams of prowlers in the night.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, I honestly don't know and I think that it'd be interesting to read a study on this.
Stuntman

I can see the appeal.  I don't think it would be an inhibitor, if I liked the house and the location.
michael

alan wrote:
I admit that I don't know as I've never visited one of these places. I've driven past the one in Durham and that's as close as I've gotten.


Where is there a gated community in Durham?
..

Wynyard (Winyard? spelling?) is gated isn't it? Where all the footballers live?

I could be wrong but I think it is, isn't it?
michael

Oh right, I thought you meant in Durham City. That's where my parents live, it is full of footballers too.
Twelfth Monkey

Alan, I'd imagine if many of the inhabitants of these little oases are footballers, better parenting is probably the last thing one would reasonably expect.
..

Good point. Well made.
michael

Twelfth Monkey wrote:
Alan, I'd imagine if many of the inhabitants of these little oases are footballers, better parenting is probably the last thing one would reasonably expect.


What are you basing that on?
Stuntman

I'm guessing that as a generalisation, most footballers are quite selfish, emotionally immature and infantile, and are therefore less likely to be good parents because they would think of themselves first, rather than the well-being of their children.

And generalising again, most footballers are not very well educated, so the subtleties of what living in a gated community may or may not do to their child's perception of life during their formative years would probably never stray across their minds.
Mark

That's a hell of a generalistion.

Riyadh – yes
Leeds – no

It very much depends on where you are, what you want and in some places, what you really have to have.

For what it’s worth, I know a few children of varying ages (2 of which spent many of their formative years in Johannesburg) who have lived in gated communities in various parts of the world and they are none the worse for it. In fact, they are probably more streetwise for having experienced life, people and culture in more difficult parts of the world
Twelfth Monkey

Stuntman wrote:
I'm guessing that as a generalisation, most footballers are quite selfish, emotionally immature and infantile, and are therefore less likely to be good parents because they would think of themselves first, rather than the well-being of their children.

And generalising again, most footballers are not very well educated, so the subtleties of what living in a gated community may or may not do to their child's perception of life during their formative years would probably never stray across their minds.


I'd love to say that I could express it better.  But I can't!

The only civilised encounter I can recall with a footballer was picking up a suit from the dry cleaners one Saturday, and my eldest (four or five at the time?) pointing at the Ferrari outside.  Robbie 'Lil' Savage was inside, and was quietly (and slightly shy-ily) embarrassed when 13th wanted to know whose it was.  I made eye contact, nodded in his direction and said to 13th that it belonged to 'that gentleman over there', and he smiled at the bairn.

Hard to square that with the occasional brutal challenge I see on TV.

Michael, I know that they aren't all cabbages, but I also doubt that they are the best parents imaginable.  And I do not intend to comment upon your parents' skills.  That's up to you.

Trust me, non-parents, there's is no challenge like it.
..

I've met a few footballers. When I was at college and working in a pub they used to come in. They were reserve team types but behaved quite arrogantly and I'm not the only one who thought so as I was warned what they were like before meeting them. One of my neighbours is an ex footballer and he's an absolute pig, I don't honestly know how we haven't yet come to blows (and you all know how easy I am to get along with, right?) His son and daughter pelted by Boxster with stones and soil, and the whole back and front of the house in fact. I was also lucky enough to met the late Wilf Manion when he worked for Capper Pipe Services (as did I, as an electrician) and he was a perfect gentleman, very polite and a joy to talk to. I think he made me a cup of tea. He was from a different age though and was as far as I could make out a genuinely lovely guy.
michael

Twelfth Monkey wrote:
And I do not intend to comment upon your parents' skills.  That's up to you.

Trust me, non-parents, there's is no challenge like it.


No challenge like it? I wouldn't disagree but that wasn't my point. I think its unreasonable to suggest footballers aren't good parents simply because they're footballers. Lottery winners on the other hand...
franki68

I am sorry but these are utterly ridiculous generalisations.
Mrs Skyhook

Gated communities - where necessary (high-crime areas etc) they can be a good thing in the short term, but I don't think I'd like to live in an hermetically sealed wonderland myself.  Gives rise to a 'them and us' mentality that I find extremely worrying.  The ones I've stayed in (both in Florida) were not that secure (anyone could walk in, driving in required a keycode for the gates), and one had to walk miles just to get to a bar or a corner shop.  It was all a bit Stepford to be honest...

Footballers - I've only ever met one, and he was a sweetie.  Sadly the people around him thought that, as they were Friends of a Footballer, they deserved special treatment and tended to shout a lot until they got it.  Horrible.  If he's still a sweetie (he was 19 when I knew him) I'd be very surprised.

Footballers as parents - for some reason I get the feeling that Beckham is a better father than many.  I have nothing to go on except the very few times I've seen him talk about them (and the fact that the Beckhams do seem to keep their kids out of the media spotlight as much as possible). This may or may not be an aberration, but quite frankly there are more seriously bad parents out there who are football fans so would we say that being a football fan automatically makes one a bad parent?  I didn't think so...
scamper

Homo erectus wrote:
Those with experience of South Africa (Eff1?) will probably have first-hand experience of gated communities - to me, it's a poor solution to the problem of crime and is part of the breakdown of society.  Now, I know it's a big ask, but the source of crime being dealt with is more useful.

Agree with Simon, the lack of balance people would get living in such a community would outweigh the barely tangiable benefits (ergo if you are worth robbin' then they'll just wait until you eventually come out, South Africa stylie).


Very strange to walk down what you think is a nice area and every house has guards/ 24 hr patrols or electric wiring on top of walls. made me feel uneasy until i got used to it - i guess its just the way they do it, although i can't say, having home secuity is major a contribution to the breakdown of society. its not seen as a solution, they just want to feel protected surely?
Twelfth Monkey

franki68 wrote:
I am sorry but these are utterly ridiculous generalisations.


Surely the only kind worth making?  And your devotion to the game surely plays no part in your objection.



I was thinking about this last night.  We took 13th & 14th to RAF Cosford a few years ago to have a gander at the planes, and there were off-limits sections with armed armed forces personnel, if that makes sense.

When we left, 14th waved to one of them and shouted, in all seriousness, 'thanks for not shooting us!'
scamper

Twelfth Monkey wrote:


I was thinking about this last night.  We took 13th & 14th to RAF Cosford a few years ago to have a gander at the planes, and there were off-limits sections with armed armed forces personnel, if that makes sense.

When we left, 14th waved to one of them and shouted, in all seriousness, 'thanks for not shooting us!'


I wonder if Mrs Scamper was on guard that day? She is a good shot    
Resident Spanner

Hang on, all this is from people living together in regions that probably at one point had a town or city wall just for that purpose, and possibly still does.
You probably all have house alarms, double glazing and several deadlocks as well as fencing....

Errrmmm.
Twelfth Monkey

Precisely.  We evolved.
LittleSwill

Or in a country with restricted borders and immigration control.
Resident Spanner

Twelfth Monkey wrote:
Precisely.  We evolved.


That's debatable too.
franki68

[quote="Twelfth Monkey"]
franki68 wrote:
I am sorry but these are utterly ridiculous generalisations.


Surely the only kind worth making?  And your devotion to the game surely plays no part in your objection.



I would have objected had you said similar about  bmw drivers,muslims..etc etc,but would have remained quiet if you had used lawyers,accountants,estate agents as your example.

Twelfth Monkey

Resident Spanner wrote:
That's debatable too.


Indeed.  I am, and can only, speak for myself.
DaveGibson

scamper wrote:
......... although i can't say, having home secuity is major a contribution to the breakdown of society. its not seen as a solution, they just want to feel protected surely?

Surely the breakdown of society came before the need for home security?
Twelfth Monkey

I am genuinely puzzled by this belief that society is prone to more serious crimes now, and that there were halcyon days when this sort of stuff didn't happen.  You've only got to look beyond the backdrop of the 'spirit of the bitz' to see black marketing and adultery on a scale that I doubt we see today.  Sure, there may be arguments about feath of imminent death altering people's normal behaviour then, but I think it illustrates that a significant proportion of society will do what it believes it can get away with, and probably always has.

'The Culture of Fear', a book by an American academic whose name I can't remember, suggests that we have become conditioned to believe that our lives are more dangerous than they have ever been, despite the diametric opposite being true.

A slightly more cynical view, to which I confess I adhere, is that a people who are worried will be paying a darn sight less attention to the doings of those in power, for reasons that should be obvious, and will be more manipulable when it comes to spending.

The most obvious pieces of chain-yanking I have seen feature in Bowling for Columbine, and the vagueness used by government officials when alluding to 'the state of threat' in post 9/11 America looks as transparent as a two year-old's fib.

Think about all the scare stories that never turned out to be true:

- Rabid animals from Europe coming through the tunnel.
- Killer bees migrating north to the USA.
- The water shortages that were supposed to have blighted 2007.

Etc etc.

I'm not saying that the 21st century is a place free from danger, but I suspect that our collective antennae twitch all too readily.  No, kids getting their first cars.  That's danger...

Mrs Skyhook

DaveGibson wrote:
Surely the breakdown of society came before the need for home security?


I'm not convinced of that one myself, I think both tend to lead to the other.  Human nature being what it is, with the need to a) keep up with the Joneses and b) do better than the Smiths and c) know exactly what everyone else is up to, locking one section of society away from another is a recipe for disaster.

Also, the 'need' for home security is rather more to do with one's perceptions of one's material possessions and their worth as well as the likelihood of their being stolen.  As an example, in my Dad's youth nobody locked their doors - not because everyone was trustworthy but because nobody had anything worth stealing.  Except that other boys didn't even have shoes with soles, or trousers with arses, so perhaps Dad had something worth stealing after all.

And as has already been mentioned, in times past towns had walls around them, the rich lived behind studded oak doors and security guards while the rest had nothing much worth stealing anyway, so where's the difference now?  Gated communities are not proof of social breakdown, we've always had them.

My own theory is that much social breakdown is a direct result of advertising.  Making people want things they don't need and can't afford leads to general dissatisfaction and disaffectness (is that a word?).  For a simple, direct example of this and the effect it has on people and communities, see Nestle and their 'work' (pah!) with formula milk in developing countries, along with what Coca-Cola is doing in India.

ETA - I agree (as usual) with Twelfth's post above.  Society is no more dangerous (and is mostly a great deal less dangerous) than it ever has been.  We are kept frightened by government spin (more advertising) and tabloid scare stories.
..

I think I read some stats somewhere that said that you're more likely to be murdered in the USA but more likely to be the victim of violent (non lethal) crime in the UK. Interesting if true.

Where I live I'm convinced that there are more instances of crime than years ago and that includes instances of violence. I'm sure it's not just my perception based upon heavier media coverage. I can only guess at the reasons why. There is relative aparent poverty, but it's not the third world and everyone has an ipod, a computer and all the rest, and there are relative poor conditions although much of the poorer conditions I see frankly look like they're due to people not putting a basic effort in. I don't think poverty or poor conditions are the cause, there's lots of drugs but I think they're only a part of the problem and that the problem is simply people choosing a lifestyle involving crime, and probably drugs too. Years ago there was maybe one or two problem families locally but now there are lots more. It obviously doesn't help that people have more stuff worth nicking, but that's no excuse for nicking it.

Leaving aside crime for a mo one thing that continually surprises and disappoints me is the number of people who can't hold a conversation these days. It's "fecking c*** w*****, like, y' know.." and "what the f*** d' ya mean like?" and they talk like this to everybody and in front of everybody. It's not just the young either. I'm not the most cultured and I wouldn't claim to be but I come from the same place as people who talk and act so differently and I wonder why. They do themselves no favours. To me it's all a part of some wider picture and problem, some don't seem to care that much about themselves or others and once that level is reached I suppose anything is possible. But no one has to be a thug, no one has to take drugs or rob, where is the conscience, decision making process and free will? I dunno...
Mrs Skyhook

There are more incidences of crime alan, the police's own statistics show that certain crimes have been increasing year on year.  But at least nobody is going to be hanged for stealing a loaf of bread anymore.

I agree with you that no one has to take drugs or rob.  But you must remember that you are coming at this question from a position of relative wealth, intelligence, good upbringing, education and so on and so forth. For someone less well-endowed in those areas it can be quite simple:  "Saw iPod on telly.  Want one.  Bloke down road has one, the jammy git, what did he do to deserve it?  I deserve it more than he does cos I want it. I'll whack him over the head and steal his".
JohnC

I don't think you can blame advertising on its own. Modern society, modern communications and transport allow individuals to see easily what others have got in different parts of the world. This would never have happened 50 years ago.

Advertising may well bring Coca Cola to India more quickly than would otherwise have been the case but even without it, Television and travel would do the same.

I just think it is a combination of human nature and "progress".

In virtually all cultures, humans try to better themselves and in places like China and India the means of doing that in the past have been stifled and limited. Opportunities are now opening up for them and no matter how many lessons we have learned, they will have to go through their own learning curve on what is progress and what is not.

I think it is an unstopable force leading to an uncertain future.

If people feel they are safer in gated communities then that's fine by me. I don't think society is necessarily any more dangerous or corrupt than it was 50 or 100 year ago but we are certainly much more aware of it and that just fuel's people's natural fears.
scamper

DaveGibson wrote:
scamper wrote:
......... although i can't say, having home secuity is major a contribution to the breakdown of society. its not seen as a solution, they just want to feel protected surely?

Surely the breakdown of society came before the need for home security?
scamper

DaveGibson wrote:
scamper wrote:
......... although i can't say, having home secuity is major a contribution to the breakdown of society. its not seen as a solution, they just want to feel protected surely?

Surely the breakdown of society came before the need for home security?


Sorry, thats what i meant - a misplaced commar.

also in the good old days we put broken glass on our walls. today its security cameras.  which is worse for society?
Mrs Skyhook

JohnC wrote:
I don't think you can blame advertising on its own. Modern society, modern communications and transport allow individuals to see easily what others have got in different parts of the world. This would never have happened 50 years ago.


To quote Hannibal Lecter "we begin by coveting what we see every day".  i do agree with you, but I think that if we didn't have that damned box in the corner telling us what we should want, and that our lives are not worth living without x, y and z, we'd be a lot better off.

This issue with Coca-Cola in India is this.  It apparently takes over 250 litres of water to make one litre of Coke (this includes things like washing the equipment etc).  In an area of India where the water supply is from aquifer-supplied wells, Coca-Cola has a factory using somewhere between 600,000 to 1,000,000 litres of water from this supply every day.  The wells are drying up (no surprise there then), so people don't have enough water.  And why is this?  Because the demand for Coca-Cola in India is so high Coca-Cola 'needs' a factory to supply it.  And why the demand?  Advertising.  Those people are losing their water supply so that they can pay to drink Coca-Cola and be like Americans.
..

By the time I had any relative wealth my personality was already set. maybe there are four causes -

1. Parental / family / role model example.
2. Pier group example / pressure.
3. Inner voice.
4. Environment and experience.

I'll ignore need as I don't believe it's a significant factor but cultural things like the media have gotta be in there somewhere at 2 or 4. For me maybe inner voice wins, I do what I want.

As I've said here before, experiences in my past mean that I'll never hit (unless faced with threat,) I'll never shout or emotionally harm and I'll try and help others if I can. It's a choice that anyone is free to make. Another thing I've posted about before - I watched a close friend of mine through childhood change and become a very violent and dangerous man who committed a terrible crime. He had more or less the same upbringing as me and lived within 100 yards. I can't explain why some go off the rails a bit and some go totally off. I honestly wish I knew.
spooner

scamper wrote:

also in the good old days we put broken glass on our walls. today its security cameras.  which is worse for society?


Unfortunately if someone injures themselves climbing over the fortified wall, you'll probably be up in court for that. Duty of care, I believe it's called.
Twelfth Monkey

Alan, I reckon that today's 'crimes we can get away with' are things like you describe and motoring-related.  I don't compare the two strictly, merely observe that they are, perhaps, unlikely to be punished.  I had a twenty minute journey home along a deserted stretch of motorway yesterday at speeds that I felt were perfectly safe, but would have resulted in a ban if plod had been around.

But yes, petty vandalism, 'antisocial behaviour' and violence on the streets do seem to be the undesirable result of the lack of dibbles on the beat.  But it's just today's manifestation of 'what can we get away with.'
franki68

its all wayne rooneys fault :)
.

Of course you could take the other extreme for this thread and suggest that you have gated communties to keep the scum in one area.

We could call them Prisons.
LittleSwill

I was thinking of a gate between Cornwall and Devon.
PR

Mike is right of course. The decent end of society shouldn't have to seek refuge behind walls and security fences.

Anyone caught wearing any kind of jogging trouser in public, while not actually jogging, should be thrown into an unbreakable-out-of ghetto for the rest of their life. It's a shame Australia filled up because we used to be able to use that!

It is the only way to redeem the social fabric of the nation.
.

Piers, have you been reading the Daily Mail again with veiws on Australia like that?

Being serious though, it is a sad state of affairs if people feel the need to live behind gates for reasons of security, but if it makes them feel safer than so be it.  The reason I say its a sad state of affairs is that we aren't exactly a lawless country like Nigeria or Kenya at the moment, though that again could be debatable for gangland areas of London, Birmingham and Manchester.  I'm not sure how gated communities you would find in these areas mind.

As an aside note - how many of these gated premises you see have gates for security reasons (Justified) and how many people have them as a tasteless fashion accessory.
PR

Mike wrote:
...gangland areas of London, Birmingham and London...


That's the other London, is it?



As for the tastless gates thing, there's a house round the corner from my office with six-foot wrought iron gates bearing, in letters at least 10" tall and painted gold, the name of the house: Champers.

They have a Warrior parked in the drive....  
.

I haven't a clue what you are on about.  As you quite astutely observed earlier, I am indeed always correct and never make any errors.  Ahem.
LittleSwill

Piers wrote:
As for the tastless gates thing, there's a house round the corner from my office with six-foot wrought iron gates bearing, in letters at least 10" tall and painted gold, the name of the house: Champers.

They have a Warrior parked in the drive....  


Piers - Are you trying to tell us about your gates?  
.

Piers wrote:
As for the tastless gates thing, there's a house round the corner from my office with six-foot wrought iron gates bearing, in letters at least 10" tall and painted gold, the name of the house: Champers.

They have a Warrior parked in the drive....  


Are you sure it isn't Scampers pad and he is trying to disguise this fact?
PR

What, you think he parks the scamperspec in the gold leaf plated oriental pagoda style detached garage?
.

We are talking about our freind who spent 330D money on a 320D all because he wanted some mudflaps, roof box and a tow bar to pull a caravan at the weekend, so it isn't unreasonable to assume he has a similary specced structure to park his pride and joy under when not being used.

Where he parks the 320D I have no idea.
Chris M Wanted a V-10

I'd hate to live in a gated house, let alone a gated community
Mark

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7215282.stm
PR

Champers:



Racing Teatray

Tasteful!

I'm never been to the sort of gated community that I suspect you lot are getting in a lather about. I'm visualising rows of largely identical mock-Tudor piles in a neatly lawned setting behind high gates somewhere like Weybridge and a distinct air of "Desperate Housewives" or indeed "Stepford Wives". I couldn't live somewhere like that.

But nevertheless my flat in London is in rather a large gated "mews" development by the river in Rotherhithe - there must be twenty or so little mews houses and around sixty flats. I like it. As Slow Eddie remarked near the beginning of this thread, it makes having a nice car easier because it's tucked away out of sight of the local scrotes (of which there are plenty) and it adds a sense of personal security because the whole compound is surrounded by at least a 10ft wall, and the pedestrian and car gates are electric and self-closing. Also the whole environment behind the gates is kept clean, trimmed and free of litter and leaves by (a) the gardeners hired by the management company and (b) the fact that litter is generally dropped by passers-by and not by residents outside their own houses. And in fact the other residents are pretty friendly by London standards.
Rodge

A friend of a friend moved to a gated community in the last year or so. He works for a large drinks company in sales and invited my mate over last week.
3 houses on the way in have got a Ferrari and an X5 parked outside them.
The bloke was talking about how far he's come in a few years, saying he now has a €50k Porsche (993 Carrera) and a house that cost €850k.
His mortgage repayments are €4k a month and he's in the smallest house in the community.
He's hoping to start a family soon.
My mate informed him that when he starts a family, the Porsche will go and they'll have to move back to where they were living.

Don't think it went down too well.


I was in one two years ago in the Hamptons in Long Island. They are very exclusive over there and very safe.
I walked past a 996 which was parked at the side of the road with the roof down and a bag in the passenger seat. Nobody batted an eyelid, so for a car lover, it's probably a good idea, however, I agree with Twelfth that they are probably a bad idea for young kids. It's good for them to mix with others when they are growing up.
       The Motor Forum Forum Index -> General
Page 1 of 1