Beware the wrath of La Lumley!
 

On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 19:28:53 -0000 (UTC)
Clank wrote:
On 15.08.2017 7:00 PM, d wrote:
On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 15:04:47 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Robin9 wrote:

I'm pleased that at least one other person agrees that it is at best
an unnecessary extra layer of government. At worst, which is what
we have experienced, it enables people of prejudice to indulge their
prejudices to the detriment of the orderly functioning of London.

The few benefits we have received, like Crossrail, we would probably
have received anyway.

Yes, that was already in the works, but the mayor fought to keep its budget
intact. However, I don't think we'd have got the Overground and its
expansion without a mayor.

I don't have a problem with a mayor per se, but I do have a problem with this
particular major. He's a duplicitous little **** and I wouldn't trust him
further than he could throw Ali Desai.

To pick just a random person, right?

Not random at all you stupid gimp - Khan worked on Desai's defense when he was
a solicitor along with a host of other obnoxious individuals. He also actively
persued the police for fatuous compensation claims and yet now he sits his
scrawny arse in city hall, in charge of the Met. Why don't you try learning
to use google.

You really are a horrible little (in every sense which matters, I have no
doubt) racist.

LOL :) Thats the best you can come up with, seriously?! :)

--
Spud

Beware the wrath of La Lumley!
 

On 17.08.2017 10:14 AM, e27002 wrote:
On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 8:33:09 PM UTC+1, Clank wrote:
On 15.08.2017 7:00 PM, d wrote:
On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 15:04:47 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Robin9 wrote:

I'm pleased that at least one other person agrees that it is at best
an unnecessary extra layer of government. At worst, which is what
we have experienced, it enables people of prejudice to indulge their
prejudices to the detriment of the orderly functioning of London.

The few benefits we have received, like Crossrail, we would probably
have received anyway.

Yes, that was already in the works, but the mayor fought to keep its budget
intact. However, I don't think we'd have got the Overground and its
expansion without a mayor.

I don't have a problem with a mayor per se, but I do have a problem with this
particular major. He's a duplicitous little **** and I wouldn't trust him
further than he could throw Ali Desai.

To pick just a random person, right?

You really are a horrible little (in every sense which matters, I have no
doubt) racist.

From the man who wants lots of "white", and only white, immigration to the UK. And, FWIW Mr. Dizaei
is Persian, not Pakistani like Mr. Khan.

What? The only restriction on UK immigration I'd place is that you should
never be allowed back under any circumstances.

Beware the wrath of La Lumley!
 

On Monday, 14 August 2017 13:08:32 UTC+1, Recliner wrote:
London's Garden Bridge project officially abandoned

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-40921373

A £200m plan to build a bridge covered with trees across the River
Thames in central London has officially been abandoned.

An excellent decision and long overdue. The only good bit of news in a never ending cycle of gloom and dispair. The whole thing is a scandal if you've followed the so called procurement and financial approval process within TfL. We don't need another Heatherwick disaster inflicted on this city nor yet more privatised space which has a direct, never ending and uncapped draw on public funds. Now we need to pursue the Trust, its supporters and the former Mayor for the return of £40m. It's a scandalous waste of money that could have been used for a vast range of superior purposes.

--
Paul Corfield
via Google

Beware the wrath of La Lumley!
 

On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 00:14:54 -0700 (PDT), e27002
wrote:

On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 8:33:09 PM UTC+1, Clank wrote:
On 15.08.2017 7:00 PM, d wrote:
On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 15:04:47 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Robin9 wrote:

I'm pleased that at least one other person agrees that it is at best
an unnecessary extra layer of government. At worst, which is what
we have experienced, it enables people of prejudice to indulge their
prejudices to the detriment of the orderly functioning of London.

The few benefits we have received, like Crossrail, we would probably
have received anyway.

Yes, that was already in the works, but the mayor fought to keep its budget
intact. However, I don't think we'd have got the Overground and its
expansion without a mayor.

I don't have a problem with a mayor per se, but I do have a problem with this
particular major. He's a duplicitous little **** and I wouldn't trust him
further than he could throw Ali Desai.

To pick just a random person, right?

You really are a horrible little (in every sense which matters, I have no
doubt) racist.

From the man who wants lots of "white", and only white, immigration to the UK. And, FWIW Mr. Dizaei
is Persian, not Pakistani like Mr. Khan.

Strange, Mr Khan was born in Tooting...

Beware the wrath of La Lumley!
 

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Monday, 14 August 2017 13:08:32 UTC+1, Recliner wrote:
London's Garden Bridge project officially abandoned

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-40921373

A £200m plan to build a bridge covered with trees across the River
Thames in central London has officially been abandoned.

An excellent decision and long overdue. The only good bit of news in a
never ending cycle of gloom and dispair. The whole thing is a scandal if
you've followed the so called procurement and financial approval process
within TfL. We don't need another Heatherwick disaster inflicted on this
city nor yet more privatised space which has a direct, never ending and
uncapped draw on public funds. Now we need to pursue the Trust, its
supporters and the former Mayor for the return of £40m. It's a
scandalous waste of money that could have been used for a vast range of superior purposes.

Some more on Boris "Make me PM now" Johnson's influence over the project:

https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/former-tfl-boss-points-finger-at-johnson-over-garden-bridge-contest/10023975.article