On 25 Aug, 13:01, wrote:
On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 12:50:43 +0100

Tom Anderson wrote:
AFAIR there has been no closures on any part of LU in previous years...
If it's a Boris decision, it's a strange one.

Maybe. He's got a track record in doing for festivals - see Rise - so
maybe he's siding with the Notting Hill NIMBYs and trying to strangle the
carnival too.

Would anyone apart from drug dealers and trendy lefties give a damn if the
carnival vanished?

As for Rise - it was just another left wing political statement dressed
up as entertainment. Why should the taxpayer fund it?

And the UEFA Champions League is a credit card advert dressed up as a
football competition ...

The taxpayer was left with the bill for Rise because Boris wouldn't
allow it to promote what the sponsors were trying to promote. I don't
suppose the sponsors of any event would pay up if their aims or
products weren't allowed to be promoted at the event.

On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 14:56:06 -0700 (PDT)
MIG wrote:
As for Rise - it was just another left wing political statement dressed
up as entertainment. Why should the taxpayer fund it?

And the UEFA Champions League is a credit card advert dressed up as a
football competition ...

True, but the difference being however that I don't pay for that out of my
taxes.

The taxpayer was left with the bill for Rise because Boris wouldn't
allow it to promote what the sponsors were trying to promote. I don't
suppose the sponsors of any event would pay up if their aims or
products weren't allowed to be promoted at the event.

If Boris stopped it turning into some barely disguised political rally then
good.

B2003

On 26 Aug, 09:38, wrote:
On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 14:56:06 -0700 (PDT)

MIG wrote:
As for Rise - it was just another left wing political statement dressed
up as entertainment. Why should the taxpayer fund it?

And the UEFA Champions League is a credit card advert dressed up as a
football competition ...

True, but the difference being however that I don't pay for that out of my
taxes.

The taxpayer was left with the bill for Rise because Boris wouldn't
allow it to promote what the sponsors were trying to promote. *I don't
suppose the sponsors of any event would pay up if their aims or
products weren't allowed to be promoted at the event.

If Boris stopped it turning into some barely disguised political rally then
good.

My experience is that it turned into a lucrative event for the same
food and drink sellers and fairground ride owners regardless of
sponsor. The political side may have been the intention of the
sponsors, but the "turning" was in the other direction.