This Article in the Yorkshire Posts seems to suggest that you would find more Rolls Royce Cars in London than anywhere else in the UK, Bradford was second. I note that the claim is now that there were more RR registered in Bradford than anywhere else, and that may well be a fact, but the original claim said about them being driven on the streets of Bradford, and this article seems to dispute that claim. http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news...arted-as-a-copy-boy-in-1927-aged-15-1-2546055 Harry Franz is a contemporary of JB Priestley; he was born in Bradford in 1912 when wool was king and there were said to be more Rolls Royces on the streets than anywhere else outside London. Harry was awarded the MBE in 1976 and still lives in the city which he covered as a journalist for half a century. (please note that it does not confirm that Bradford had more Rolls Royces than anywhere other than London, just that it was believed so, there is no actually hard evidence, but even so at best Bradford can only claim second spot on the automobile front) In respect of the discussion about millionaires, then in this article from the London School of Econmics, it refers to a paper by W D Rubinstein, where it says that during the 19th century, London had 97 millionaires, Clydeside had 30, Merseyside 28 and West Yorkshire 19. (read the 1st paragraph of the 2nd page) Whilst there may have been a period within the 19th century where your statement would be true, ie during a specific year, with the numbers above statistically it would seem unlikely. http://www.people.hbs.edu/tnicholas/Wealth.pdf (Rubinstein worked at Lancaster University in England from 1974 to 1975, the Australian National University in Canberra in 1976–1978, Deakin University in Victoria, Australia from 1978 to 1995, and currently works at Aberystwyth University. Rubinstein has held chairs of history at Deakin and Aberystwyth Universities, and is an elected Fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities, the Australian Academy of the Social Sciences, and of the Royal Historical Society. Rubinstein was President of the Jewish Historical Society of England from 2002 to 2004 and was the editor of the articles on Britain and the Commonwealth (except Canada) in the second (2006) edition of the standard reference work) Whilst you may well be correct with your observations Leeds60, I have yet to find any creditable article to support what you have said. Now if you wish to dispute the above then perhaps you may wish to write to Mr Franz and the Yorkshire post with regards to the Roll Royce comment, and Mr Rubenstein with regards to the millionaires comment, I'd be interested to see their replies.
Thank you Aski for providing some hard evidence/proof which finally puts pinnochio in his place. He does dig deep holes for himself and I would like to know where he gets the idea of placing a bet on everything? If I had bet he would have clearly lost but his problem is that even with this new evidence he will either ignore this thread or tell us it isn't over he will be putting pen to paper. Again Leeds60 I would like to ask you to explain your comments about "gunning for me" and read back through your last several posts, you really are showing yourself up.
I am going to stick to the original point 60 made regarding rolls royces. He clearly said 19th century millionaires were running round in rolls royces. The date was the only part of the statement I took issue with. Last time I looked 1912 was in the 20th century. The suggestion that the very idea that there were more rolls royces in London if correct just indicates another error on mikes part. The suggestion that the Orient express originally set off from Bradford was laugh out loud funny.
ok. I have had my granola now. Mike you remain wrong on both the very limited specifics I said you were wrong about all those weeks ago. I am uncomfortable that you are clearly unhinged enough not to be able to accept that you were wrong and it has become clear that instead of accepting that you made a couple of mistakes you have taken things far too much to heart and turned into a raving nutter. There is no point in me just repeating that you are wrong, there is no point in you sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting lalalala. Most of all I am uncomfortable that your stupidity and intransigence has caused others to get on your case. I have no problem with a piss take but believe it or not I can't stand the pack mentality where the "weakest or the dumbest" get picked on a the wider group so even though I was proved 100% correct on both the very narrow points I made on your ridiculous statements I will be the bigger man and leave this alone now. You may well want to carry this on and I can't stop you, but I ask that you consider all the other people here who are sick and tired of this argument that is going nowhere. Are you man enough?
What have we reached now, round 15 maybe. Must be fast approaching a knockout or fighters will drop from exhaustion
After the post by Aski we can hopefully call this one game set and match, at least it has it's own thread now, shame all previous posts and comments on the subject can't be combined Aski has kindly killed it with his hard evidence over hearsay so I will be saying no more unless it is to acknowledge a Leeds60 apology
I wont hold 60 to an apology and IMO nor should you. He is too far up himself to ever apologise, it should be enough to realise that you were correct from the get go. Far better to Try and ignore his nonsense if he continues to bark at the moon.
I WILL ask Maria for her comments and I will write again to the Telegraph and Argus this battle is not over Maria confirmed I was correct and that's good enough for me
