Disgusted at the sale of jo and ron wood's house in richmond on at £13million!

Doctor_Gloom

My word, hasn't thermidor/pickledpink/rumbaba/honeypooper had a wail of a time on this thread? Nice one.

owitemisermusa

Don't be hatin'
There's nothing wrong with the house.
If they get the price they want, be happy for them.

adouglasmhor

rumbaba wrote: »

Oh here we go - another one who tries to turn the obvious into a load of psychobabble cr£p, to try and make them look deep and intellectual. Duh!!!!

The REASON the picture makes most NORMAL people repulsed is that it's meant to look like one of the vilest creatures that's stalked this world. In case you've gorgotten, Hindley was EVIL and enjoyed torturing, absusing and murdering children with that filthy evil monster, Brady. She's now rotting in hell thank God.

So, no - we don't need to wonder WHY the picture evokes emotion in us. WE'RE normal!

There's nothing arty about the picture. Anyone with a warped mind could take a photograph like that. Very easy actually. I suppose the drug-raddled boozer, Wood, was p1ssed when he bought it and didn't even know who it was meant to be. He's not exactly the sharpest tool in the box is he?

You show the emotional intelligence of the mob, you would like to burn it and all the books you don't like too.

The fact you can't cope with your emotions like a normal person (which you are not despite your claim) shows your immaturity. Go away and play Nintendo or something the grown ups are talking.

adouglasmhor

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

the original Richmond is in Yorkshire. The name came to be attached to the area SW of London because Henry Tudor (later Henry VII) had a title connected to the northern Richmond, and it got transferred south - possibly when the Palace of Nonsuch was built nearby.

And the Golden Fleece used to be the best pub there. I used to live very close to Richmond Yorks.

kittiej

Maybe the Woods just like Kate Moss and it has nothing at all to do with Hindley?

Maybe they are patrons of the artist? Who knows, but whilst we are psychobabbling, it aint half an odd place to put such an image - in the bedroom *shrugs*, what does this tell us about the Woods I wonder?

Nice house - shame about the copper bath

Mutter_2

Not my style.
Gothic house next door. Interior doors are wrought iron gates, gargoyles look down from every corner. Bit creepy for my taste.
Of the celebrity houses I've seen, Jean Boht and Carl Davis' was one I loved. White interior and glass everywhere plus overlooking water. Simply beautiful.

There are some nice properties to swap for hols.
http://www.luxehomeswap.com/properties/by-continent/uk-and-ireland/list?bedrooms=5

Zazen999

rumbaba wrote: »

Oh here we go - another one who tries to turn the obvious into a load of psychobabble cr£p, to try and make them look deep and intellectual. Duh!!!!

The REASON the picture makes most NORMAL people repulsed is that it's meant to look like one of the vilest creatures that's stalked this world. In case you've gorgotten, Hindley was EVIL and enjoyed torturing, absusing and murdering children with that filthy evil monster, Brady. She's now rotting in hell thank God.

So, no - we don't need to wonder WHY the picture evokes emotion in us. WE'RE normal!

There's nothing arty about the picture. Anyone with a warped mind could take a photograph like that. Very easy actually. I suppose the drug-raddled boozer, Wood, was p1ssed when he bought it and didn't even know who it was meant to be. He's not exactly the sharpest tool in the box is he?

So anyone who watched Schindler's List and caught sight of any actors playing German Reich is also not normal? You are aware that people paid to go to the cinema and watch it don't you?

You 'normal' people are really quite funny!

sp1987

rumbaba wrote: »

Oh here we go - another one who tries to turn the obvious into a load of psychobabble cr£p, to try and make them look deep and intellectual. Duh!!!!

The REASON the picture makes most NORMAL people repulsed is that it's meant to look like one of the vilest creatures that's stalked this world. In case you've gorgotten, Hindley was EVIL and enjoyed torturing, absusing and murdering children with that filthy evil monster, Brady. She's now rotting in hell thank God.

So, no - we don't need to wonder WHY the picture evokes emotion in us. WE'RE normal!

There's nothing arty about the picture. Anyone with a warped mind could take a photograph like that. Very easy actually. I suppose the drug-raddled boozer, Wood, was p1ssed when he bought it and didn't even know who it was meant to be. He's not exactly the sharpest tool in the box is he?

A lot of art is made to evoke polar emotion. We can't all be happy looking at a tin of Campbell's soup.

I personally would not have it in my house, I don't feel it would send out a message I would be happy with. But, with that said, he used a supermodel (one of the acclaimed most attractive and influential women aesthetically to many in the world in recent times) to portray an evil woman. It is the matching of 'good' (well, aesthetically good or beautiful which are inextricably linked) with a profound image of 'bad' (evil and ugly) that makes the piece critically acclaimed artistically.

Though obviously I would be ignorant to think you have any substance or depth that exists beyond 'it looks like myra hindley'. Give the artist a ring, I'm sure he wasn't completely aware of what the image might cause. Generally I find contemporary art a bit ridiculous as it is all about making up a bizarre meaning for a bulb or some old boot found on the floor but this one is actually pretty obvious and profound. Maybe you should google the works of some of the classic artists (blasphemy) and even the more recent work of Frida Kahlo, a woman who portrayed dead babies ('Miscarriage in Detroit') and crippling accidents in her art. I very much like her work. Though probably you would just comment on the 'ahahaha woman with a monobrow lolz', such is your approach prior to now. I readily expect another 'state the obvious, ignore the meaning' comment and am ready to scroll past it.

As for the house, not my choice of decor but they would take the furniture and I could paint the bath and the walls. Job done. Not worth £13million to me even if I had it (I'd prefer elsewhere in the UK) but I'm sure it is worth it's money if you are looking for that size in that location.

Anyone who spends their days staring at pictures of other people's houses for sale to criticise the way others choose to decorate their homes (which in this case is a few weird items that would move with the owners and a few loud colours) should maybe go and check that their own home is capable of critical acclaim and is the beacon of taste. Nobody's ever will be. Good on them for having the balls to make their home something they were happy to live in.

Fang_3

honeypopper wrote: »

I've just taken a quick read through his posts and he's never mentioned being unemployed? Can't you read? Nor did he say he had few friends (don't put everyone in the same lonely boat as you) and he didn't steal his lodger's deposit, by all accounts it was the lodger who did wrong according to what he said. She sounded an utter nightmare - and the flat was for the lodger - not the boyfriend! READ!

I rarely respond to most of the posts on here but in your case I feel obliged to. You're a vile putrid creature who is deeply unhappy with your measly lot. And it shows.

Go and browse through your catalogue and daydream a bout the cheap stuff you can't afford. You little loser.

Oh dear, another account I see. Another one that can't read.

uptomyeyesinit wrote: »

Hi guys, this is my first post on here so please treat me kindly. Last year I took lodger in and made it very clear to her that I was looking for someone for a minimum of 6 months. She was happy with that and even said she'd stay for a year if that was okay. Cut a long story short she started getting demanding after she moved in and moaned about trivial things. She moaned about not having enough space in fridge when there was ample room and then she said she was unhappy that I said her boyfriend could only stay over every other weekend, she wanted hm to to stay every weekend.

Seven weeks after she moved in I came down to find a letter she'd written saying she was leaving in one month. I spoke to her later and told her we'd agreed on a minimum 6 months and she got all shirty and said because her boyfriend couldn't stay as often as she wanted she was leaving.

She left me high and dry. I live in a fairly remote area and it isn't easy finding lodgers. Before she dropped this bombshell that she was leaving after just 2 months I ordered a desk for her bedroom which she insisted on, even though the room had no desk when she came to see the house. I was well out of pocket and not being able to get a lodger to replace her I could not return her deposit. Besides, we had agreed on a 6 month minimum stay.

She took me to court for the deposit and tried to claim somewhere in the region of one grand, saying she was a tenant and that I hadn't secured her deposit. We went to court on Friday and the judge said she was a lodger and that she wasn't entitled to claim the extra money from me. She brought a friend to court with her who wan't a solicitor but he obviously thought he was, he kept promting her and butting in until the judge told him to leave the room.

The judge said that as the contract was very loose and it was simply a houseshare and I hadn't written out a contract stating about the 6 month munimum stay I have to pay her deposit back, even though I have been unable to find another lodger to replace her. I explained that I am now not working (I have proof) and have no source of income. I offered to pay her depost back by installments until I get myself back on my feet but the judge said I had to pay in total within 14 days. I don't have the money, she left me high and dry and in debt as I ordered the desk and also a fridge which she demanded, and was not expecting her to up and leave so quickly.

I thought if you couldn't pay straight away you could pay by installments but the judge more or less said it was too bad and I'd have o pay her in 14 days or she would have to take further action to get the money.

Is this correct?

Cheers in advance.

Eddie

It also doesn't matter what he said, the judge that had access to all the facts decided that he did wrong and had to return the deposit. A deposit that should have been kept secured. Instead the poster decided to spend it and then didn't have any friends or family who could lend him the money to pay it back.

It always amazes me how many people who attack can't take it back and need to use another account to back themselves up. Still, let's hope he finds a job and some friends soon, eh?:)

Fang_3

rumbaba wrote: »

Oh here we go - another one who tries to turn the obvious into a load of psychobabble cr£p, to try and make them look deep and intellectual. Duh!!!!

The REASON the picture makes most NORMAL people repulsed is that it's meant to look like one of the vilest creatures that's stalked this world. In case you've gorgotten, Hindley was EVIL and enjoyed torturing, absusing and murdering children with that filthy evil monster, Brady. She's now rotting in hell thank God.

So, no - we don't need to wonder WHY the picture evokes emotion in us. WE'RE normal!

There's nothing arty about the picture. Anyone with a warped mind could take a photograph like that. Very easy actually. I suppose the drug-raddled boozer, Wood, was p1ssed when he bought it and didn't even know who it was meant to be. He's not exactly the sharpest tool in the box is he?

Lol. You don't watch films or television then? Or read?