Oh dear...I've had many a drink in there.
Why has it been demolished?
Just noticed the "black bar thingy" covering the policewomans face...what's that for?
No, it's not being demolished.
It fell down!
Here's another thread:
Last edited by PhilipG; 09-02-2007 at 02:09 PM.
I loved that pub. Especially in the winter with it's coal fire. Such a warm atmosphere.
The Lamb Inn
Look across the High Street at the impressive brick facade of The Lamb, with its archway leading to a yard and beer garden at the back. Often described as a 'Georgian coaching inn', the present building dates, in fact, from the 1850s. Although Baines's Lancashire Directory of 1825 lists the Lamb - together with the Coffee House and the Thatched House Tavern - it seems that the pub at that time was relatively small.
The brick archway of the present Lamb was not used for stage-coaches to pass through, but for William Dilworth's horse-drawn omnibuses which plied between Wavertree and the centre of Liverpool. Bus travel in those days was for the wealthy few. The single fare is said to have been 6d (6 old pence), which was well out of the reach of ordinary people.
In the days when many people were unable to read, pubs often took their name from an easily-recognisable symbol which could be displayed outside. Thus, in the early nineteenth century, township meetings in Wavertree were advertised as taking place 'at the Sign of the Lamb'. Nowadays there are other considerations, like brand image and corporate identity. In 1996 Allied Domecq, the owners of The Lamb, proposed to change its name to the Ferry & Firkin, following its transfer to their Firkin Brewery Co. subsidiary. Eventually - after protests by the Wavertree Society and others - the company agreed to allow the traditional name to remain on the front of the building. The new 'sub-title' is the Fold (as in sheep-fold) & Firkin: rather more relevant than the three-mile distant Ferry 'cross the Mersey!
I do not know if the pub will be demolishing. If u see the The Lamb, only one small building, one part, is broken. So, I hope that it will be restore again.
It's the best thing to do when posting a picture on the internet - not everyone might take kindly if they suddenly came across their mug - or someone else said they'd seen them
It's best to block out the face and then you are covered if you use the pic without that person's permission.
If somebody is in a public place, and they appear on a photo, there's nothing they can do about it.
What about journalists talking to camera and the public are walking by?
My experience in St John's Gardens (when I was challenged about what I was snapping) was because those gardens are owned by the Council, so strictly speaking aren't a "public place" (which sounds wrong, but it isn't).
Why be so pedantic, Chris?
Comments like yours could put people off from posting on this (usually) friendly site.
The pavement on St John's Lane, or anywhere in William Brown Street are places where I could take photos without Liverpool City Council's Stewards challenging me.
So my point (above) is quite valid.
This is a friendly site. I am just trying to question why the Council should object to you taking photographs on what should be, in my interpretation, public property. I am a photographer too and I just wonder why taking photos in St. John's Gardens should be taboo.
All I'll say is that St John's Gardens belongs to the Council, and is not in the same category as a public street (which probably also technically belongs to the Council, but isn't supervised in the same way.)
If you can't dazzle them with brilliance,baffle them with bull
http://www.bmycharity.com/laurenrobinson please give generously to childrens cancer charity Clic sergent
Chippie wrote: "RUDIE NUDIE PHOTO,just for Mandy and Jackie, and maybe single from Dingle. "
Well I got a nice chuckle. Thanks, Chippie.
PS Nothing to do with your attributes. Just reminded me of the beginning of the old Monty Python shows with the nude bloke at the piano. . .
And now for somthing compleatly diffrent.
multi multa; nemo omnia novit
Where do you draw the line, peoples houses where the Beatles lived appear on the www, pubs - (does the landlord come out and say 'Oy'?)
It's all a bit crazy when there's real far worse things going on all around us. If a steward told me to stop photographing or to delete a pic, i'd first tell him to grow up, if he persisted, i'd ask him what he's going to do about it, get me arrested - I wouldn't mind the hallaballoo of going through with something like this on principal to see how far they could take it and letting the news people get hold of it and seeing how stupid these jobsworths really are.
Its a personal opinion... I do not like to see my face in a public web site, so, I do not like do it the same, with other persons (except if I know their opinions...).
I'm sorry if I can not explain that well...
Not on about you Marie but the way Phil was stopped taking pics. I see you had a moral opinion and that's ok.
When building a website, I have to be ultra careful that I have accounted for all my pictures, and it is very rare that I take a picture with someone else in the background - too much trouble for it's own good!
Ainscough's Liverpool book has pics he took throughout the 60s, mainly 66/67. Nearly all contain people and it enhances them because you see the fashions and hairstyles too and gives a sense of time as do the motor vehicles in the photos, Joe Devine does this too, it's part of the attraction. I think it can be a bit drab and a loss to just photograph a building with nothing else in shot but it's a trap I fall into sometimes.