London SE1 community website

Garden Bridge

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Current: 19 of 52
Saturday 6 June 2015 12.10am
eDWaRD WooDWaRD wrote:
Jules62 wrote:
Thebunhouse wrote:
PR = Lumley and Boris = lifelong friends from childhood.

Whose childhood are you referring to: she's 19 years older than he is...

Lumley – who has known Boris “since he was four”- quote from the Guardian.

So, a glamorous 23 year old actress was friends with a 4 year old boy in 1969 swinging London.

She knew him, but anyone would reasonably find it very hard to describe this as a friendship.

I am sure this would have occurred much later, at least until Boris was able to participate collaborative playing (age 4 is not quite the right developmental stage for this)...

Let's face it: Joanna and Boris were not 'Childhood Friends'.
Saturday 6 June 2015 2.07am
Jules62 wrote:
She knew him, but anyone would reasonably find it very hard to describe this as a friendship.

I am 15 years older than my wife, and anyone would reasonably find it very hard to describe our relationship as anything less than a friendship. At least as far as Boris is concerned, La Lumley may as well have been a lifelong friend. I can imagine BJ being quite a precocious child, and their relationship may well have turned into friendship as he grew older. 46 years is a very long time. I am not anyone, maybe that's why I don't find it "reasonably very hard" to describe their relationship as a friendship. we simply don't know, do we, and assumptions make for a very weak argument.
Saturday 6 June 2015 8.34am
* test message to fix broken pagination - ignore *

Editor of the London SE1 website.
Subscribe to our SE1 Direct weekly newsletter.
Saturday 6 June 2015 10.07am
This started off as a short response and grew.

So I’m piecing together this week’s Garden Bridge / Michael Ball / TCOS London toing’s and froing’s. It’s slightly bizarre, and heavily blurred with political half statements, so I’m going to use some lists and bullet points to do it:
• After the Garden Bridge secures planning permission from Westminster and Lambeth, Michael Ball applies for a Judicial Review on two counts – one on the grounds of harming protected views, the other about the uncertainty of funding the bridge maintenance costs.
• We contribute funds via Thames Central Open Spaces to fund the Judicial Review.
• In the build up to the JR we ramp up our collective noise with community meetings, more donations, and lots of tweets with hyperlinks to Guardian articles.
• A mere week before the JR hearing date, a cause we’d all hailed as inevitably quashing Lambeth’s planning approval when upheld, Michael Ball does a deal with Lambeth Council to withdraw the JR in return for three things:
i.Lambeth now must receive a legal guarantee that the bridge maintenance costs will have an underwriter like TfL. This is decidedly odd, as this is already a planning condition from Westminster, and within 48 hours has already been dealt with by Boris Johnson singing off the guarantee.
ii.Lambeth pay off Michael Ball’s legal costs, so those who have crowd funded the JR have now paid twice, once to the TCOS appeal to pay the lawyers, and now again (along with all taxpayers) for Lambeth to pay the same lawyers. The community benefit received for this double payment to fund the aborted JR is zero, but it’s OK as Michael Ball has now reassured us there is no need for the JR after all. Those who specifically funded the JR don’t get a refund, our money goes into a war chest to fund the same lawyers for the next battle Michael Ball and TCOS decide wage on our behalf.
iii. And finally the key issue of harm to protected views that was the crux of the JR we funded. Oh no .......this deeply emotive issue has suddenly completely disappeared off the radar, as though we (through Michael Ball and TCOS) have decided it was actually never a thing after all, so let’s just move on and talk about maintenance costs.

On the surface this seems like a really really poor deal compared to potentially quashing the planning permission. But no wait. Actually is was all a cunning plan to open up yet another legal challenge(presumably better than the last one we all paid for that didn’t happen) to challenge the Mayor’s guarantee, the same guarantee Michael Ball has been celebrating securing all week. This is becoming a little circular at this point.

So for my final list I conclude there are two most likely explanations for the current course of action by Michael Ball and TCOS:
1.They are executing a perfect plan. Show boating about protected views before delivering the fatal ‘it was always about the running costs’ blow.
2.They are on the back foot having spent our money (twice in some cases) on a legal challenge that was tagged at its initial legal review as being very likely to fail, then bailed at the eleventh hour rather than having to pay costs, and are now framing this as win, alongside a London Assembly motion that Boris Johnson will dismiss.

I’m really want to love option (1), but wish I had more material to work with.
Saturday 6 June 2015 9.26pm
People complained about the

Millennium bridge
London Eye
Millennium Dome (O2)
The Shard
Tate Modern

to name a few

Now all landmarks

Give it a chance, London is forever developing/growing city.

A city that take chances and does things differently.

Stop being haters and negative about our great city.
Saturday 6 June 2015 10.01pm
drog wrote:

Stop being haters and negative about our great city.

I am neutral on the Bridge, but the people concerned about it, including close friends and neighbours, are not haters, nor are they negative about their city. Just because something is a "landmark", it doesn't make it a good thing. Out of the landmarks you mention, personally I've only ever been enjoying MB and TM. I don't intend to ever go on the LE or the Shard. I've been to the 02 a few times, and pretty much leaves me indifferent. As far as London being a developing city - fine. I just don't really like some of the direction it's developing into.
Sunday 7 June 2015 12.41am
[quote drog]People complained about the

"Millennium bridge
London Eye
Millennium Dome (O2)
The Shard
Tate Modern

to name a few

Now all landmarks"
They're not all good landmarks and each project has different merits. Comparing this vanity project to any of them is lazy.

"Give it a chance, "
You mean build it, see how it goes and when it all inevitably goes belly up, unbuild it? Not possible. Sometimes you just have to put your foot down to wasteful follies. The city doesn't have to say yes to everything Boris suggests.

"London is forever developing/growing city."
Indeed; we need more co-op housing not bridges in this heavily bridge and tourist congested area.

"A city that take chances and does things differently."
Like saying no to the developers here in SE1. Be brave and build a proper transport bridge in east London where they need it.

"Stop being haters and negative about our great city"
Very dismissive of real concerns of local residents who live nearby and the nation as a whole who treasure the openness and freedom of the South Bank and the Thames. Stop privatising public spaces.
Sunday 7 June 2015 2.55am
"I’m really want to love option (1), but wish I had more material to work with.[/quote]"

Axe to grind?!

It sounds like you've come to negative conclusions based on somewhat flawed (conspiracy?) theories. Perhaps you'll find answers here
Sunday 7 June 2015 9.30am
Having seen tne political and administrative body for London change three times during the last 50 years, LCC then GLC and now GLA I fail to see how the mayor can guarantee to meet the maintenance costs of the Garden Bridge for the next 125 years. Boris will not be in charge and the GLA may have morphed into a heterogenuous administration that puts the citizens first and follies last.
Common sense tells us that £3.5 million currently estimated as the annual cost of maintenance will have increased as the bridge ages and shows signs of wear and tear over 125 years and with inflation over such a lengthy period I would have thought a total maintenance cost would be closer to £150- £250 million an unsupportable burden on the London taxpayer. So Boris's apparent guarantee coming so conveniently and coincidentally can be reversed.
Lambeth are proving that things can be changed even when one believes that there is , almost, a covenant on gifts of land from the LCC/GLC by thwarting the intentions of the GLC with the abuse that they are contemplating and are comfortable with of granting a 200 year lease of public land for a peppercorn rent to CSBC so that CSCB can maximise their take on the parcel of land from monies to be gained from the Garden Bridge by diminishing the amount of green and open public space.
As an aside. Whence cometh thou Mitchell Scott?
Current: 19 of 52

To post a message, please log in or register..
We are part of
Independent Community News Network
Email newsletter

For the latest local news and events direct to your inbox every Monday, you need our weekly email newsletter SE1 Direct.

7,000+ locals read it every week. Can you afford to miss out?

Read the latest issue before signing up

Also on the forum
Views expressed in this discussion forum are those of the contributors and may not reflect the editorial policy of this website. Please read our terms and conditions