Hastings is deceptively crxp, in Sussex and on the sea, so in theory should be nice, and looks at first glance pretty, but it's really cut-off (always talk of it having a decent road linking it to London and the rest of the south east, but it never happens), lacks any of the excitement or charm of Brighton and has a terrible crime/drug problem, even the pier had the decency to burn itself down...
Luton,clearly. I agree about Hastings. I was at the Westminster Press School of Journalism in '82 in next door St Leonard's on Sea and both had a decaying ****ensian feel to them. I was chased into an auto repair shop,together with my brothers in '79 I think,in Mansfield.We had just won there and the two locals weren't best pleased,they came in and asked for 'Wrigleys'. The owner told them to clear off which angered them greatly! Finally we left and all three of us kept looking over our shoulders on the way back to our car. Nasty.
Stoke. STOKE. A dreadful, dreadful place. As it was formed from 6 smaller towns merging together it has no actual city centre and is just miles of run-down sprawl.
I know Luton is leading the Poll, but that is for obvious reasons! However, I notice Stoke is in 2nd place, which is the real worse place in England, and would be leading on any non footballing forum, it really is the pits!!!
Interestingly each place has at least one vote. Oxford?? There are parts that are not great like any town but worst in Britain?
It's almost surrounded by a circle of council estates rife with gang violence and drugs. Still not the worst though, as you say.
I'm surprised Rotherham isn't on the list. The only time I went there was in the 96/97 season where we drew 0-0 at their old ground. It was the most depressing place I can ever remember visiting.
Credit to the Leicester Tourist Board - they have worked wonders on improving Leicester's image. Those pictures show it in a much better light than I remember it.
