Foxy DLR
 

On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, alex_t wrote:

The lost land! The Bow back rivers area is one of my favourite places
in London; i don't know that i'd call it 'lost'. But then, i don't have
to live there!

Yes, they are nice - but as most things in the area they are very
neglected: dirty, smelly, etc. Well, the smell is not from rivers
actually, it comes from the sewer nearby (especially when the wind is
from the sea), but it stinks so bad...

The only reason that I live here is that I got a chance to rent a flat
in a brand new block (near the City Mill Lock) quite cheaply, and it is
nice to live in, or better to say - it *was* nice in the beginning. As a
first tenant on my floor (and one of the first in the entire building) I
witnessed gradual decline from the initial shiny new building to current
pig farm (which is of course quite logical, given that most people
living here behave like pigs). Add local yobs, polish/ eastern-european
drunkards, a couple of recent bourglaries (not in my flat thank god -
*knocks on wood*), multiple letter boxes broken into (I redirected most
of my mail to work) - and it is no surprise that I'm going to start
searching for a better place soon... :-/

Yikes. Okay, that doesn't sound too fun.

tom

--
Axaxaxas Mlo

Foxy DLR
 

Tom Anderson wrote:


The lost land! The Bow back rivers area is one of my favourite places in
London; i don't know that i'd call it 'lost'. But then, i don't have to
live there!


Me too. But sadly very soon to be closed off, the wilderness "tidied up"
and the diggers to move in for the Olympics.
Get up there now to see the area while you can.

Foxy DLR
 

Martin Smith wrote:

As far as I am concerned you can come and collect as many as you like
from South East London, we have so many of them, but beware, a lot of
them are very mangy, I suppose since their diet will be a mixture of
discarded fast food, lots of that round here, and of course the
contents peoples bins. We fairly often find dead ones on our
allotments. They are not a healthy population at all.

Animals die. I don't think you can read too much into that, except that
there might be something poisonous on the allotment.

Foxy DLR
 

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 wrote:

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:21:43 +0000, John Hearns
wrote:


Me too. But sadly very soon to be closed off, the wilderness "tidied up"
and the diggers to move in for the Olympics.

And what a total financial fiasco the damned Olympics are now turning
out to be from what I have heard on the news to day. I really feel
genuinely sorry for all Londoners who will have to stump up quite a
large part of the money needed via council tax to provide facilities
so people that with nothing else better to do can do all sorts of NONE
productive things with balls and bodies .
If some people want to run round a race track like idiots let them if
they want to do anything else in the name of sport or athletics let
them but do NOT expect people who do not have any interest at all in
such things to pay very dearly for it .
If Sebastian the nastian wants the damned Olympics let HIM pay the lot
out of his own pocket .
Rant over .

I suppose it's too late to say no and let Paris shoulder the burden.

Foxy DLR
 

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 13:26:51 +0000, wrote:

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:21:43 +0000, John Hearns
wrote:


Me too. But sadly very soon to be closed off, the wilderness "tidied up"
and the diggers to move in for the Olympics.

And what a total financial fiasco the damned Olympics are now turning
out to be from what I have heard on the news to day.

Yeah, funny that, when you put 20 years building into six years, it
costs a lot. Means you don't need to spend that money (plus inflation)
over the following 14 years, though.

Foxy DLR
 

In message ,
writes

I suppose it's too late to say no and let Paris shoulder the burden.

Pilocks the likes of Coe would not let such a thing happen, I could be
totally wrong but I feel this would not be happening if Mrs Thatcher
was still in charge .

You say that as though that would be a good thing?

For your info, Mrs.T doesn't run things now (and hasn't for quite a
while now, thankfully) and the currently elected government feels it is
the way to go. As a resident of East London, I'm inclined to agree with
them.

It is actually a good way for us to show the world how we can shine with
our organisational skills, and at the same time put some money into a
run down area to develop it.

YMMV of course.
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)

Foxy DLR
 

As a resident of East London, I'm inclined to agree with
them.

As a resident of East London I'd say that East London would have been
much better if even half of those money would be invested directly
into the transformation of the land - without any Olympics. Besides I
don't think that Stratford or Bow will look any better in the end
(until they will demolish everything and replace with a park).

Foxy DLR
 

On 15 Mar 2007 08:25:37 -0700, "alex_t"
wrote:


As a resident of East London, I'm inclined to agree with
them.

As a resident of East London I'd say that East London would have been
much better if even half of those money would be invested directly
into the transformation of the land - without any Olympics. Besides I
don't think that Stratford or Bow will look any better in the end
(until they will demolish everything and replace with a park).

More than half the money is going into regeneration. The actual costs
of running the Games are (a) small in comparison and (b) entirely met
by sponsorship and TV rights money.

Foxy DLR
 

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:58:52 +0000, Steve Fitzgerald wrote:

It is actually a good way for us to show the world how we can shine with
our organisational skills,

The thing is, most people don't give a toss about this (or at least
not enough to want to pay for any of it).

Besides, we're just as likely to embarrass ourselves instead, with our
lack of organisational skills or any ability to keep to a budget.

Foxy DLR
 

More than half the money is going into regeneration. The actual costs
of running the Games are (a) small in comparison and (b) entirely met
by sponsorship and TV rights money.

What about the cost of new buildings (stadiums, etc) ?