Possel wrote:Jerry wrote:500 in congregation, but 244,000, or more, people in Southwark. Just adding a little to the statistical background.
Your point being...?
Possel wrote:Jerry wrote:500 in congregation, but 244,000, or more, people in Southwark. Just adding a little to the statistical background.
Your point being...?
Ivanhoe wrote:Where? I have not seen this assertion made in any news report I have read on the subject. Only by people in this thread objecting to the objection.However, I personally find it anachronistic, to say the least, when news items seek a view from the church and then present that as if it's representative of a significant proportion of the population (as in this case).
Ivanhoe wrote:He would indeed - but if you read http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/2064 you will find a quote from the Mayor's monthly report explaining that his payment to the cathedral was in lieu of the GLA hiring its own legal people to pursue the matter.(And if the Mayor was acting in his capacity as a local employer, why is he giving money to the Cathedral to complain for him? As a local employer, surely he'd be entitled to complain on his own behalf anyway.)
SE1 wrote:Mr Livingstone says that he considers the cost "appropriate, in view of the saving made by [the GLA] not making a full objection" in its own right.
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