But why mention Trump in the headline?

Hey, why not? Seems like some pretty spectacular property.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/dec/29/national-trust-giants-causeway-golf-course

Probably because it's the most ninniest and simpering of Newspapers Shot, and such a sensationalist tag line helps to reel in the professionally faux-fended like you know who!

But you would mention it wouldn't you? Trumpton's been in the news enough and it's the archetypal example of this in recent times.

Navy - Bit of a rhetorical question ... I do understand why they wanted to paint with the broad Trump brush, but still seems a sloppy copy editor or headline writer.

I've been to NI exactly one time in my life (on my way to and through County Donegal) and, from my limited observation, it looks like an area that would benefit from this sort of investment.

"Labour intensive landscape" seems a bit harsh. Would anyone describe Royal Portrush as such (which I assume would be a model for a course such as this)?

Shotrock, it's not just a golf course though, is it? If it were, it might not have proved to be so offensive to the National Trust. However, a 120 bedroom hotel, 75 houses and a golf academy will blot any landscape and, although this project isn't immediately on the Giant Causeway's front doorstep, it will certainly change the surrounding landscape sufficient to get the notice of UNESCO who may decide to make an example by removing heritage status.

There's no doubt of course that, like everywhere else, Northern Ireland needs the investment but it's difficult not to come to the conclusion that, in its desperation to plug fiscal holes, the Northern Irish government isn't looking to the end game. Given the type of project (not to mention who the course architect is!) it would be foolish to take for granted this project is going to be successful. It would be a great shame for it to risk losing its only world heritage site for what at the end of the day is just another hotel complex with (yet another) golf course stuck on.

SR, Sloppy is exactly what The Guardian is. Dreadful, dreadful paper, so it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that they draw a comparison, no matter how tenuous it is.

If The Sun is the paper of the uneducated working class, The Guardian is the paper for the pretend to be clever, Labour supporting middle class who like to get offended at anything. Both papers as bad as one another.

Mr super. After that ridiculous sweeping statement regarding people's reading material of choice. Obviously you are entitled to your own views. But can you confirm your favourite newspaper or website? And what's wrong with being labour supporting and middle class?

Beninho, it was tongue in cheek just as my assessment of The Sun was (strange you didn't question what I said about that though)

There is nothing wrong with being Labour supporting or Middle Class, I'm middle class myself, it's just the awful way The Graudian reports that make it as bad a newspaper as The Sun is, just it sort of gets excused for it's rubbishness because it's deemed more socially acceptable because it's the choice of the socialist middle class, well a pathetically small 200k circulation anyway.

All newspapers have some sort of agenda. Just people that believe everything written are just very gullible. But there are a lot worse papers then the guardian to pick up on. And it has the best website of them all. Though back to the main point. I could assume trump was mentioned as his name was brought into it by UNESCO. I have been to giants causeway. I didndidn't think this place needs a golf course and huge hotel nearby. Why can't places be kept as they are sometimes.

Of course there are but The Guardian adopts that holier than thou, faux-fended, smarmy agenda like no other.

Not sure about the whole course thing though, I think people always say "Oh aren't there enough golf courses" and there might well be a lot over there, but sounds like they are trying to cater for a different market, and lets be honest, NI needs the tourism revenue, and 500m is surely far enough away from The Giants Causeway for UNESCO to really have a legitimate say.

super_realist wrote:...and 500m is surely far enough away from The Giants Causeway for UNESCO to really have a legitimate say.

Umm, no.

Re. Guardian. Didn't they break the phone hacking etc? Seems a worthwhile thing to me.

The Guardian is as hypocritical as any other paper.

Maybe, but when did I mention anything about hypocrisy? If it did nothing else worthwhile for decades I'd still give it credit for the NI/hacking scandal.
In addition, cf. The Sun, at least it tries to use words of more than one syllable.

Still doesn't make it a good paper though, just means they've unearthed one good story in their 50 odd year history. I'm sure even papers owned by the ghastly Murdoch (even The Sun) have brought important stories to the fore.

is S_R not behaving in a faux-fended manner? no, he's just being the tiny-minded little pr!ck that he always is. new year, same old tw@t.

ban me, block the post. the number and frequency of useful posts that this forum gets has dwindled to such a paltry amount that i can't be arsed reading it any more. if the bilious n0bend that is S_R didn't post, there'd be virtually no traffic at all.

i can't be ar$ed any more, so i'm off to a forum where d!ckheads like S_R are put down very smartly like the waste of space that they are.

(yes, i read the guardian. no, i don't vote labour. it's part of my rounded view of the world. perhaps you might like to step outside of your self-infatuated bubble S_R and take a look for yourself)

thedamned3putt wrote:is S_R not behaving in a faux-fended manner? no, he's just being the tiny-minded little pr!ck that he always is. new year, same old tw@t.

+1

One persons "tiny little Tinkywinky" is another's "tongue in cheek provocative" amusement" It takes all sorts to contribute to a successful forum. If we all had the same thoughts and beliefs there would be NO debate.

It's always been the case that some people are more provocative than others. Some people are more sensitive than others. In a face to face situation you either walk away and avoid an awkward confrontation or at the other extreme fisticuffs ensue. Trading insults/banter on a web forum is different, you can walk away ( but usually don't) and fisticuffs are not an option so insults freely escalate.

For the record I don't think the Guardian is that bad. All newspapers have their character flaws that appeal to certain readerships, that's just the way it is.


Edit...love the way how it changes Pr!ck (if you spell it right) to Tinkywinky. I wonder if one might Tinkywinky themselves on a bramble bush :-/

What a big baby. Boo bloody hoo.

Funniest thing and best rant I've seen in a long time. Well done 3 putt.

Looking at a map of County Antrim, it looks as if this course will be more inland than links. My last visit to Portrush was three years ago when I took in the Giant's Causeway and Carrick-a-Rede Rope Bridge. Have to admit, although there's a cracking dune system at the Royal Portrush course, can't remember seeing dunes anywhere near the Giant's Causeway. Seemed to me the surrounding area was more of a cliff/sea landscape.

Anyway, what I've really been wondering is how this complex will affect the coastal pathway which is absolutely magnificent. You have to think that purely from a safety issue, the course won't be allowed to be anywhere near it?

There's no doubt the Northern Irish Executive has taken this decision out of sheer economic desperation. You only have to read this from their own website ... http://www.northernireland.gov.uk/index/media-centre/news-departments/news-doe/news-doe-february-2012/news-doe-210212-new-golf-resort.htm ... where they've pretty much told UNESCO to get stuffed!

Oh and did I mention the Lough Erne golf resort is still in adminstration?

What safety issue Gael? I can think of a rather famous course in Fife with a public right of way road running across 2 fairways!! And another hole on the same course where you have to aim at a hotel

Using Lough Erne's financial predicament as a reason for not opening another golf course is a pretty flaccid argument.

For a start it's on the other side of the country to where this one is proposed and not exactly in a golfing hotbed.

Using that as a basis preumably insinuating that "golf courses are running out of money, so why build any more" as an argument just doesn't make any sense.

It would be a bit like saying the Sainsbury's in Newcastle has gone out of business so they shouldn't open a Waitrose in Manchester.

Putting aside the UNESCO and heritage issues, it could like Fife, Lothian, Aberdeenshire (with the glorious Trump), Lancashire etc make Norn Irn, particularly Antrim a must visit golf destination as Portrush, Rathmore, Ballymena etc are already there.

Terrible idea. It is one of the most raw, beautiful, historic coastlines in Ireland. Im sure the logic in backing the project is because of the many attractions in the area, Bushmills factory, Carrick-a-Rede rope bridge, Dunluce castle, Giants causeway it would be a big draw for tourists from the US and give them a big 5 star base to stay and spend their money.

However, the best thing about that part of Ireland is its rugged unspoilt beauty.

Fermanagh isnt too far at all from Antrim and probably closer to Dublin than Bushmills is to Dublin where they would presumably be hoping to attract a lot of business. Also there are also already quite a few excellent courses in the area such as Royal Portrush just up the road.

Isn't that the thing though GNG, I wouldn't necessarily go across to NI (I'm resisting the urge to call it :leprechaun: land ), if there were only Portrush as a standout, but I might do if there were a clutch of class courses within a short drive.
I've seen how Kingsbarns has given people a real boost when they come to St.Andrews, sure Trump is doing the same in Aberdeen, this might well have the same effect in NI.

I dont think the NI tourist board would be too concerned if you didnt make a visit. In any case Royal County Down is arguably a better course about an hour away. Portmarnock in Dublin is only around two miles away. There are some excellent courses in Donegal too.

The area already has plenty of natural attractions. Perhaps money should be invested in marketing them rather than sellling out and building eyesore resorts.

Fair enough, I don't know enough about the area, and I've no great desire to go there, however it was purely from speculating to accumulate that I thought the course might be a good idea.

I might not know the area too well, but I know Portmarnock is more than 2 miles away in fact it's in a different country.

Also, why is it that when people disapprove of a project it automatically means it will be an "eyesore". Are there any courses that are "eyesores"?

sorry meant two hours.

Whatever it looks like it will be an eyesore because it will be right beside the beautiful and historic landscape of the giants causeway which is just wrong. You could build the most beautiful building in the world there and it would look out of place in my opinion.

I dont think the course would be an eysore as much as the resort itself.

160 miles in fact. That's more like 3 hours on Irish roads. Or London to Manchester. Long way to go for a game of Golf.

super_realist wrote:160 miles in fact. That's more like 3 hours on Irish roads. Or London to Manchester. Long way to go for a game of Golf.

I have done it in two hours. The roads are obviously very good between Dublin and Belfast and its just a short trek from Belfast. 2.5 hours maybe.

thedamned3putt wrote:is S_R not behaving in a faux-fended manner? no, he's just being the tiny-minded little pr!ck that he always is. new year, same old tw@t.

ban me, block the post. the number and frequency of useful posts that this forum gets has dwindled to such a paltry amount that i can't be arsed reading it any more. if the bilious n0bend that is S_R didn't post, there'd be virtually no traffic at all.

i can't be ar$ed any more, so i'm off to a forum where d!ckheads like S_R are put down very smartly like the waste of space that they are.

(yes, i read the guardian. no, i don't vote labour. it's part of my rounded view of the world. perhaps you might like to step outside of your self-infatuated bubble S_R and take a look for yourself)

Not the most constructive addition to any discussion .

JAS wrote:What safety issue Gael? I can think of a rather famous course in Fife with a public right of way road running across 2 fairways!! And another hole on the same course where you have to aim at a hotel

Poor analogy JAS. Do I really need to explain why?

navyblueshorts wrote:

thedamned3putt wrote:is S_R not behaving in a faux-fended manner? no, he's just being the tiny-minded little pr!ck that he always is. new year, same old tw@t.

ban me, block the post. the number and frequency of useful posts that this forum gets has dwindled to such a paltry amount that i can't be arsed reading it any more. if the bilious n0bend that is S_R didn't post, there'd be virtually no traffic at all.

i can't be ar$ed any more, so i'm off to a forum where d!ckheads like S_R are put down very smartly like the waste of space that they are.

(yes, i read the guardian. no, i don't vote labour. it's part of my rounded view of the world. perhaps you might like to step outside of your self-infatuated bubble S_R and take a look for yourself)

Not the most constructive addition to any discussion .

Really? I thought it was quite an accurate description of s_r. Seems to me his utterly relentless "bilious" style of posting would be quite a turn-off to potential posters.

Considering the course is supposed to be built 500m from the causeway what's the safety implication? Have Taylor made brought out a new super distance driver?

as a golfer i'd rather courses were built in pretty places rather than ugly places

gaelgowfer wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

thedamned3putt wrote:is S_R not behaving in a faux-fended manner? no, he's just being the tiny-minded little pr!ck that he always is. new year, same old tw@t.

ban me, block the post. the number and frequency of useful posts that this forum gets has dwindled to such a paltry amount that i can't be arsed reading it any more. if the bilious n0bend that is S_R didn't post, there'd be virtually no traffic at all.

i can't be ar$ed any more, so i'm off to a forum where d!ckheads like S_R are put down very smartly like the waste of space that they are.

(yes, i read the guardian. no, i don't vote labour. it's part of my rounded view of the world. perhaps you might like to step outside of your self-infatuated bubble S_R and take a look for yourself)

Not the most constructive addition to any discussion .

Really? I thought it was quite an accurate description of s_r. Seems to me his utterly relentless "bilious" style of posting would be quite a turn-off to potential posters.

It may well be accurate (in 3putt's opinion) but it's hardly constructive is it (which was my point which, incidentally, you seem to have missed) and, to be honest, anyone who posts that they're flouncing off is pretty sad IMO.

Slowride wrote:as a golfer i'd rather courses were built in pretty places rather than ugly places

I'd rather the course itself was good instead of being in a spectacular setting but actually being pretty pants. If you just want the setting, well, the Causeway is already there after all....just go look at it as it is.

This could certainly be topic for endless debate ... how important is the setting and views to the overall attractiveness of the course? It's hard to play The Old Head, Pebble Beach or Cape Kidnappers and not be overwhelmed by the setting. And why fight it, especially if it's a "destination" course and trip? (BTW, I've always thought Old Head is the whipping boy for OK courses on great settings.)

Nothing at all wrong with a low-cut blouse if you have the goods.

From people I know who have been, the surroundings at Augusta National are a total dump so you can build a great course in a toilet whereas I'm sure there are plenty examples of dire courses built in stunning locations.

However, I do think the visual impact and aesthetic qualities of what are in essence pretty bleak and featureless areas within the UK is somewhat overplayed, not that I necessarily think putting a golf course would make it any better, I just think we overplay the actual value of all the places people try so hard to protect.

Super - You got that right. Augusta is some place, but (like Pine Valley) hardly in impressive surrounds.

gaelgowfer wrote:

JAS wrote:What safety issue Gael? I can think of a rather famous course in Fife with a public right of way road running across 2 fairways!! And another hole on the same course where you have to aim at a hotel

Poor analogy JAS. Do I really need to explain why?

Yes Gael, please explain why there would be a safety issue of such proportions that it should prevent the project going ahead. For the record I'm not sure whether the project could/should go ahead or not. But if it didn't I'd be very surprised at the end of the day if the reason for it not going ahead was safety.

Perhaps the safety risk would be to the Golfers with Finn McCool (the giant of the giants causeway) throwing rocks about.

JAS wrote:

gaelgowfer wrote:

JAS wrote:What safety issue Gael? I can think of a rather famous course in Fife with a public right of way road running across 2 fairways!! And another hole on the same course where you have to aim at a hotel

Poor analogy JAS. Do I really need to explain why?

Yes Gael, please explain why there would be a safety issue of such proportions that it should prevent the project going ahead. For the record I'm not sure whether the project could/should go ahead or not. But if it didn't I'd be very surprised at the end of the day if the reason for it not going ahead was safety.

(sigh) ... JAS, this is what I actually said, "... You have to think that purely from a safety issue, the course won't be allowed to be anywhere near it?" Your response to this point was "... please explain why there would be a safety issue of such proportions that it should prevent the project going ahead." Although I am against the project itself, my reasons have nothing to do with the coastal path per se but rather a wish, should the project go ahead (pending the judicial review), to see sufficient safety considerations being given to the siting of the course relative to the coastal pathway, a tourist destination in itself. In any event, as I have no idea whether or not the course will be sited anywhere near the coastal path, the point I was trying to make was entirely academic and should have be viewed in that context.

As to your poor analogy, the road crossing the 17th and 18th fairways on TOC is purely for access and one can clearly see whether or not it's safe to cross. Should the golf course come anywhere near the coastal pathway... particularly if it runs parallel to it ... then the safety of the walkers becomes a much more precarious business.

There are hundreds and probably thousands of courses that are close to roads, houses, paths, tracks, train tracks, fields, parks, etc with no significant impact on safety.
I'm sure it would be brought up in a design context, but very much doubt it would be a big issue that couldn't be worked around to authorities satisfaction.

As for TOC, you'd be surprised just how stupid pededstrians and drivers are when using the road on 1 and 18 and who don't appear to look, don't seem to realise the danger they are in, no consideration for their own safety and just saunter over despite the calls from starters and marshalls for them to either wait or hurry up. However, as only a shortknocker couldn't carry the road, it's quite good fun to put the wind up them and put one over their heads.

As for pedestrians on parallel paths, just how unobservant would you have to be not to notice you were next to a golf course and that it might be an idea to be vigilant for errant golf balls?

Gael I know perfectly well what you actually said. I just think that you're trying to invent a safety issue before you know if there is potentially one or not. Even if the design results in fairways being relatively close to the coastal path don't you think the designers would be smart enough to be as safety concious as possible with the routing?
Maybe TOC was'nt the best example but there are countless examples the world over of what could be described as potential safety issues deriving from a chopper on the tee unable to keep a ball from straying onto a main road, a railway, a hotel, a residential area, footpath etc etc.

Exactly JAS, it's probably more difficult to compile a list of courses where a course is far enough away from anything at all. In fact I can't think of any.

Slowride wrote:as a golfer i'd rather courses were built in pretty places rather than ugly places

Would you be happy if they built a huge 5 star golfing resort right beside stonehenge? There are pretty places and there are places that should be protected because they are special. Giants Causeway and surroundings fits into that category.

gaelgowfer wrote:Oh and did I mention the Lough Erne golf resort is still in adminstration?

Didn't know that, but seems correct from a quick look. In which case, isn't it a bit peculiar that the G8 meeting in June will be held there? Maybe deliberately symbolic of the world's financial troubles, mind you...

Cheap rental rates, plus the locals are too busy rioting about a flag than to care about the G8 on their doorstep.

JAS wrote:Gael I know perfectly well what you actually said. I just think that you're trying to invent a safety issue before you know if there is potentially one or not. Even if the design results in fairways being relatively close to the coastal path don't you think the designers would be smart enough to be as safety concious as possible with the routing?

Eh, no, I'm not dear JAS, dear JAS, dear JAS, I'm not! I've already admitted that I have no idea where the intended site will be. I merely stated that I hoped the course wouldn't be anywhere near 'striking' distance of an important tourist destination. Even if all walkers were made aware of the dangers, it doesn't make for a pleasant walking experience knowing you could get hit by a golf ball which, in certain sections of the pathway, could also result in throwing one over the cliff edge as well!

It doesn't matter how smart golf course archtects are; they cannot control the direction in which a ball is hit by a hacker and, dare I say, sometimes by good players as well.

Maybe TOC was'nt the best example but there are countless examples the world over of what could be described as potential safety issues deriving from a chopper on the tee unable to keep a ball from straying onto a main road, a railway, a hotel, a residential area, footpath etc etc.

Oh, so this makes it alright then to deliberately site the golf course next to the coastal pathway?

Plenty courses are built next to pathways, bridleways, cliff edges etc, not deliberately but by coincidence.
If there has ever been an incident when someone has been struck and they have then subsequently fallen off a cliff Carry On Style I would personally pay for you and Mac to play Trump.

Sounds like a case of "if your aunty had balls she'd be your uncle"