From The Metro:
Regarding the axing of the £200 million London Garden Bridge [MetroTalk, Wed]. We have lots of bridges. Stick some of those giant plant pots on them and, hey presto, you have a Garden Bridge* at a fraction of the cost.
Elle, London.
Should read "several Garden Bridges", but the point stands.
Christmas Day: readings for Year C
9 hours ago
9 comments:
But wasn't Joanna Lumley contractually obliged to show her ya-yas if the Garden Bridge were built?
G, I take is "ya-yas" = breasts? If so, was that supposed to make people for or against the idea?
Let's flood the place with garden bridges.
Why would a bridge cost £200m? And what had they spent £40 million on already?
JH, pun?
JJ, waste and corruption.
They are ,I believe, sticking ugly lumps on London Bridges to stop terrorists mounting the pavements in vans and slaughtering people.If they were to use planters full of specimen plants/small trees it would have much the same effect as a Garden Bridge whilst protecting people.But they would have to be watered and weeded and this would be beyond the British ruling class to organise.
DBCR all those trees along las Ramblas don't appear to have been very effective protection
DBCR, not "organise", but "pay for". They would have to increase the number of people in government employ and they would never do that unless those people would be more bureaucrats. Heaven forfend that the government employ more people to do anything useful.
@B
They could set the scheme up and then privatise it so more of the funding could disappear into private sector managers' salaries.
That is the modern system which I am sure you agree is infinitely superior.
Don't mention the crash of 2007 and 2008: everything is alright with that. All the bwankers were saved with billions of pounds of money made up to cover their sorry arses. Strange that the money cannot be created for anything or anybody else. That would never do.
Post a Comment