Being sent to Coventry.

[Will]

This phrase has popped up in the last few hours, I'm sure you can't imagine why. But it occurred to me that if I remember correctly, no one is really sure how this phrase came about.

Share your favorite theory here.

[Steve W]

I'm not a native of this area of the world. I'm actually welsh and am from a small town called Ammanford, 20 miles west of Swansea. I have lived in Warwickshire for 7 years, and lived in Cheltenham for 3 years before that.

I've heard this saying many times and I always thought it came about because people were sent there years ago either to be executed, or because coventry wasn't a very nice place to be. I've done a bit of digging around and found the below sites. All which suggest similar meanings

http://www.joe-ks.com/phrases/phrasesS.htm
http://www.rootsweb.com/~genepool/meanings.htm
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question...8064139AAUl4Nc

[Leofric]

Originally Posted by Will

This phrase has popped up in the last few hours, I'm sure you can't imagine why. But it occurred to me that if I remember correctly, no one is really sure how this phrase came about.

Share your favorite theory here.

It dates from the Civil war when Coventry (On the side of the Parliamentarians) was a stronghold due to its city walls. Royalist prisoners were kept in Coventry, and the saying stuck.

Another famous saying "True Blue" also has its origins in Coventry.

[chillitt]

and also ' i wouldn't live there if you paid me'

[Madhatter]

Neither would I chillit, as I said elsewhere they probably spend as much if not more on the place per person that stratford, They're investing all the time, and have some superb ideas, but it's still a bleak concrete jungle. The ring road is probably the best ring road in britain though, the traffic free town centre could work if they rebuilt the centre. That along with the thing in montrsosity square is enough punishment for anyone being sent there.

[Leofric]

Originally Posted by Madhatter

Neither would I chillit, as I said elsewhere they probably spend as much if not more on the place per person that stratford, They're investing all the time, and have some superb ideas, but it's still a bleak concrete jungle. The ring road is probably the best ring road in britain though, the traffic free town centre could work if they rebuilt the centre. That along with the thing in montrsosity square is enough punishment for anyone being sent there.

You complain it's a concrete jungle (Which it isn't, as most of the post-war buildings are brick and stone, including the precinct) then go and praise the ringroad, which IS the biggest lump of concrete in the city centre, and the main reason for the city's concrete jungle image, which is wholly unjustified - and we're only talking about the city centre, which suffers from being rebuilt in a small period with similar designed buildings (Something the council imposed on architects.) Some of the post-war architecture in Coventry is highly regarded, and in fact, listed. Some of the suburbs - such as Earlsdon - are very popular with more facilities than most small towns, including non-entity dumps like Atherstone, Bedworth and Binley Woods.

What "montrsosity square" is that? Priory place, which consists of the BBC regional offices /radio station/ TV station and four restaurants [Which have been successful]? Or the Arches, home to a nationally important museum, and soon to be home to a Thai restaurant, bar and cookery college in the old fire station? Sounds good to me - also includes City Gates, City wall, ruins of an ancient priory, a museum, and the remains of the Cloister Undercroft. Oh, and Millennium Place.

Other huge developments coming up include Belgrade Plaza, Park Court, and the whole station area is being redeveloped, including a measure to link the city centre with the ringroad via Greyfriar's green.

[Leofric]

Originally Posted by chillitt

and also ' i wouldn't live there if you paid me'

Some of us prefer small towns, some of us prefer cities and accept that cities are filled with big buildings that may be ugly and functional, noise, and people and hustle and bustle. I've lived in Small towns and cities, and you couldn't pay me to live in small towns anymore.

[chillitt]

i live in one of two houses on the edge of a farmyard. theres a tiny hamlet half a mile away. nearest pub is 2 miles! i'm sure its not everyones cup of tea..

[Madhatter]

That would be constructive critiscism then, 'non entity dump', lol proves how little you know, if you going to criticise somewhere at least find out first. Atherston is a far better place to live than coventry.
Coventry most definately is a concrete jungle and is certainly a dirty fithy dump in the city centre, I was there last weekend, I saw. The precinct is not stone it's concrete, anybody can see the precinct is brick and concrete. It along with the ring road may be two of the greatest feats of civil engineering and urban planning built under the gibson plan because they were ground breaking at the time. It may even be listed, plenty concrete buildings are grade II, but it doesn't change the fact that it is bland and uninteresting and a lot of the areas are filthy. Monstrosity Square in front of the excellent Motor Museum does nothing for Coventry, it's simply adding to the urban out of date look for the future. Why not build something of note with some archtecture. You only have to go around the back of the motor museum to see a very different view.

This is why you know very little... Earlsdon is a suburb of a big city, it comes under coventry city council who run coventry, a dense, heavily populated area. To do something in Coventry or Earlsdon takes very little cash in order for all to benefit.
Ath on the other hand, and Coleshill are North Warwickshire and are rural towns, Ath and Coleshills tax has to pay for not only the small populations of the two main towns but smaller villages and hamlets all over North Warwickshire, the hinterlands, which still need services, facilities and maintenance despite there being only a hand full of people living there. The diffence between running a tower block with hundreds paying rent and a sprawling country estate with a hand full paying rent. Obvious which will be the most well off.
The insult doesn't end there though, we have high business rates, rates which go into central government pot, and then dished back out, only they aren't dished back out in proportion to how they were collected. We get less than is collected

This is why everything that you take for granted to make your towns and cities nice we have to work for and get the money from elsewhere, even down to summer flowers and Christmas lighting, which are mostly paid for by donations.
Therefore I think size for size and population I think therstone is far superior, far cleaner, has more facilities, more shops than equivalent sized towns, more impressive old buildings, has done more to build the town, up, and has a far greater sense of community.

[Madhatter]

Originally Posted by chillitt

i live in one of two houses on the edge of a farmyard. theres a tiny hamlet half a mile away. nearest pub is 2 miles! i'm sure its not everyones cup of tea..

You must live in a right dump chilit, you haven't got any facilities lol
Nice though isn't it. I hated living in a city, If I didn't live in a small town, I'd go smaller not larger.