[ Home | Comment | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: b and q
Date: 26 Jun 2010
Time: 04:04:38 -0500
i wonder if i was the only one to laugh out loud yesterday after hearing ken livingstone declaring the chelsea barracks case as the worst incident of royal interference in modern times ! ? what royal interference does he mean here ? surely not the trashing of london by arab royals ? I love ken livingstone defending the right of arab royals to build their vile monuments in london - mere millionaires couldn't afford to live in their richard rogers designed dream appartments in chelsea. prince charles suggests that actually the design is a wee bit inappropirate and along comes our ken defending the ken given rights to build whatever they want and wherever they like, to his chum rogers and his billionaire royal arab clients. prince charles has successfully interfered in only a single case in london and that was preventing trafalgar square being trashed by the addition of an office block pretending to be an extension of the national gallery. yes - that thatcher inspired extension to the national gallery was mainly offices - thatcher thinking that the national gallery could use the rent from those offices to pay for the running of the gallery. oh and there was an extra bit of space in that design for showing painting. but not much. thanks to charles he inspired the sainsbury's to do something amazing.