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.

The Garden Bridge Trust has announced that it is winding up the
project due to a lack of support from the mayor.

In April, Sadiq Khan said he would not provide the financial guarantee
needed for planning permission.

A review of the project said £37.4m had been spent and it would cost
taxpayers £46.4m if it was cancelled.

Since the mayor's decision, the trust has been looking at other
funding options, including speaking to the government. It said that
all potential benefactors and trustees decided the project could not
happen without the support of the mayor.

'Sad day'

In a letter to Mr Khan, the trust's chairman Lord Davies said: "We are
incredibly sad that we have not been able to make the dream of the
Garden Bridge a reality and that the mayor does not feel able to
continue with the support he initially gave us."

He said the trust had raised £70m of private money towards the project
and had satisfied most of the planning permission conditions.

Some people have made a lot of money from this chimera.

There is a similarity between the name Lumley and the surname of Lyle Lanley, who sold a Monorail to Springfield in the Simpsons.

writes:

On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 13:08:29 +0100, Recliner
wrote:

London's Garden Bridge project officially abandoned

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


Are you expecting her to Avenge the situation?
Many people will regard the news as absolutely fabulous.

Sapphire and Steel have been assigned.

I'm no fan of the Mayor, but I think he's made the right decision.
It's not his fault that all that money was spent for so little, but it
would have been his fault if the scandal had been continued.

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 10:23:56 +0100, Robin9
wrote:


I'm no fan of the Mayor, but I think he's made the right decision.
It's not his fault that all that money was spent for so little, but it
would have been his fault if the scandal had been continued.

A while back you converted me to your point of view on this one. We
do not need the Mayor, or his bailiwick.

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.

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.

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.

--
Spud

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.

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.