Euston Arch to be rebuilt as nightclub
 

"E27002" wrote in message
...
On Sep 25, 1:16 am, "michael adams" wrote:
"E27002" wrote in message

...

IMHO Macmillan is NOT a hero.

quote

Macmillan served with distinction as a captain in the Grenadier Guards
during the war, [WW1] and was wounded on three occasions. During the
Battle of the Somme, he spent an entire day wounded and lying in a slit
trench with a bullet in his pelvis, reading the classical Greek
playwright Aeschylus in his original language.[13

Publishing]
On his return to London in 1920 he joined the family firm Macmillan
Publishers as a junior partner, remaining with the company until his
appointment to ministerial office in 1940.

{Macmillan was responsible for publishing and championing the work of
the Irish playwright Sean O'Casey)

Housing Minister (1951-1954)
With the Conservative victory in 1951 Macmillan became Minister of Housing
under Churchill, who entrusted Macmillan with fulfilling the latter's conference
promise to build 300,000 houses per year. 'It is a gamble-it will make or mar
your political career,' Churchill said, 'but every humble home will bless your
name if you succeed.'[32] Macmillan achieved the target a year ahead of schedule.[33]

/quote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Macmillan

Thank you. Clearly he was a hero. Unfortunately the latter day of
his government were marred by scandal. Two elections later Wilson was
firmly in control and the UK's decline went into overdrive.

That was hardly MacMillan's fault. The only real scandal I can recall was
that of Profumo an honourable man brought down by an eye for a nice piece
of spare crumpet. It was only George kerb-crawler Wigg sniffing around
and bringing up the Ivanov connection of which Profumo had no knowledge
which cause Profumo to lie to his colleagues and the House.

Macmillan had stepped into the breach on the sudden fall of Eden, another
honourable man brought down by one moment of madness - Suez in his case
when the country needed a leader with gravitas. If anything caused the fall
of Macmillan as much as anything it was his being an easy target for mimicry
starting with Peter Cook. More especially the humilation he suffered at
the hands of the arsehole Cook who directly insulted him from the satge
of "Beyond the Fringe".
You may as well blame Peter Cook and the TWTWTW crowd for the defeat of
the Tories as anyone. While second time round it was Alec Douglas Home
in any case. Again an honourable man but totally unelectable up against Wilson
certainly as compared with other candidates such as Butler, Macleod etc.
But all of whom had made enemies within the Tory party.

So it was all your own fault.



michael adams

....

Euston Arch to be rebuilt as nightclub
 

In uk.transport.london message ,
Thu, 24 Sep 2009 12:12:11, Paul Terry posted:

I know the plan drawn up in the 1990s showed that buses could get
through, although with very little clearance (500cm each side, I
think). I wonder if that's still possible with the buses in use today?


I doubt whether current buses are anything like ten metres wider than
those of the 1990s. G

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. Turnpike v6.05.
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
PAS EXE etc : URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/ - see 00index.htm
Dates - miscdate.htm estrdate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc.

Euston Arch to be rebuilt as nightclub
 

"Bruce" wrote in message
...

The old Euston had two fine features (the Arch and the Great Hall) but
the rest of it was a disgusting smoke-filled pit that served no-one
well at all. The new Euston is an iconic building that symbolised the
"white heat of technology" of the 1960s and was far more functional
than what it replaced.

The concourse at Euston does work well, and I've read several accounts of
the old Euston station being cramped and poky behind the arch. But some
aspects of the present station are very dated. In particular the taxi rank
is at the bottom of a steep staircase, reflecting an approach of separating
pedestrians and road vehicles on different levels, which was fashionable in
the 1960s. Presumably disabled passengers weren't given much thought at the
time, and if you had heavy luggage or a push-chair the assumption was that a
porter would help you.

Further up the West Coast line, Coventry station is an example of how well
1960s architecture can work.

Martin

Euston Arch to be rebuilt as nightclub
 

"Martin Rich" wrote

The concourse at Euston does work well, and I've read several accounts of
the old Euston station being cramped and poky behind the arch. But some
aspects of the present station are very dated. In particular the taxi
rank is at the bottom of a steep staircase, reflecting an approach of
separating pedestrians and road vehicles on different levels, which was
fashionable in the 1960s. Presumably disabled passengers weren't given
much thought at the time, and if you had heavy luggage or a push-chair the
assumption was that a porter would help you.

Disabled passengers who arrive (or depart) by taxi can book Passenger
Assistance and be met by the buggy. They are then taken by a weird and
wonderful route through the bowels of the station and delivered to their
train [1], which they can board before the platform is announced on the main
departure indicator on the concourse. In the reverse direction there seems
to be an understanding that the buggy takes passengers to the taxi drop-off
point, where they are put into a cab, jumping the taxi queue.

[1] Last time my father and I used this we shared the buggy with another
passenger, so were taken to platform 18 first, then back through
subterranean Euston to platform 3 for my father's train.

Peter

Euston Arch to be rebuilt as nightclub
 

On 23 Sep, 21:40, Chris Lonsbrough wrote:
IMHO, it should be placed in a central postition in front of Euston
Station.

The proposal is to site it between the surviving Lodges on the Euston Road.

http://www.eustonarch.org/images/text/joerobson.jpg


How are all those buses going to get through that?

Euston Arch to be rebuilt as nightclub
 

"Tim Fenton" wrote in message
...

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

It's not a case of things being directly attributable to the Tories, or
any
other party: the adventures of Tim Smith, Neil Hamilton, Tim Yeo and
goodness knows how many more could not reasonably be personally
attributed
to John Major, but they played their part in the severity of his defeat
in
1997.

As is often the case after a Govt. has been in office for so long they
often look
tired by comparison with a hungry opposition which also has never had the
opportunity to make mistakes. Or been subject to the vicissitudes of
"Events, dear boy events".

The point I was making was simply that none of this was directly
attributable
to Harold MacMillan.

Did I assert that any of it was?

....

No. But the poster I was intially responding to, did,

....

MacMillan, like any incumbent PM, was
identified with all manner of stuff that was not directly attributable to
him. That's happening right now. It's what happens.

Macmillan's own daft fault for going there and sitting in the
auditorium
where Cook could see him.

Only an unmitigated arsehole such as Peter "comic genius" Cook would
ever
insult
somebody in public who had no means of replying in kind.

He shouldn't have gone there. Same for anyone else in the public gaze.

I see. So that according to you, somebody who suffered three wounds in
defence
of his country in WW1 shoudn't dare venture into a theatre in the Capital
of
that country 40 yrs later, for fear that he'd be directly insulted from
the stage
with no possibilty of reply ?

Are you seriously suggesting that ?

As someone who has paid his taxes and behaved in a generally lawful manner
over the past decades, I know that using this as a merit badge will not make
it appropriate for me to venture into a variety of areas and/or institutions
which would be more suited to folks of different outlooks, ages and so on.

Had I been a former soldier who had been wounded in action, this would not
have changed things. Those on stage frequently take the **** out of audience
members - Barry Humphries as Dame Edna used to be particularly hard on late
arrivals - and at no time do they take the precaution of asking how they
feel about it, or their personal history.

....

Those late arrivals are relative nobodies, not people in the public eye. Dame Edna
quite possibly singled people out on account of their atrocious clothes as well.
However having had their ten seconds in the spotlight these people will then sink
back into welcome obscurity for the rest of their lives.


....

OK Cook knew who he was ridiculing. But MacMillan should not have gone. A
little basic research would have put him straight.


So Cook was in the habit of singling out well known members of the sudience
for ridicule was he ? He had a history of it, did he ? This being at a time
when interviewers still used to call politicians "sir" on radio and TV.




Cook was for many years a major supporter and
shareholder of Private Eye,

It was either that or spend the dosh on booze or drugs I imagine.

Doesn't help being so mean spirited, even though I'd readily agree that
Peter Cook was a flawed individual.

Not quite as mean spirited as humiliating someone in the public eye from
the stage of a public theatre however.

You're never going to get over that, are you?

Other than that, the fact that Peter Cook chose to publicly and knowingly
waste his latter years in a drink filled haze is entirely up to him.

As have many figures in the public eye, not least Churchill, Wilson,
Thatcher and goodness knows who else. Your point is?

....

First up, Churchill, Thatcher, and Wilson were at a relatively advanced age
had lost General Elections and were no longer leading and would never again
their parties. Unlike our Comedy Hero who had a good twenty more years
of writing and performing ahead of him. What's more Churchill Thatcher and
Wilson didn't **** away their remaining vestiges of talent by phoning local
talk radio stations in the middle of the night in the guise of a Swedish
lorry driver called Sven. Again, no comparison.

....






Most if not all the best stuff in the Eye was the work of Paul Foot.

Ingrams and co often simply voiced their middle class prejudice agains
gays
jews and sundry others.

Many individuals did (and still do) contribute to the Eye. It's always
been
a team product. Ingrams himself was the source of the attitude towards
gays
for so many years but of course the mag had contributors who were gay,
notably Tom Driberg, who did so many of the crosswords ("Tiresias"). I'm
not
aware of any anti-semitic leaning:

Maybe not. Its just unfortunate that two of the Eyes biggest
adversaries/betes noir
down the years Maxwell and Goldsmith both happened to be Jewish and also
"pushy outsiders". Not that the latter applies to all Jewish people by any
means
of course.

There were many other figures, such as Wilson,

Same as every other P.M. Bailley Vass, Sailor Heath, Heathco etc etc.

....

Bill Deedes,

Eh ?

Whenever did the Eye get stuck into Bill Deedes ? Shome Mhishtake surely ?



Harold Evans,

Only because he couldn't take a joke. "There is nothing like a Dame".


and of course dear old Rupe,


Only about his latest, oriental wife giving him handjobs. Not much different
to Vere Harmsworth and Peter Cook in that respect as it happens. Otherwise
the Digger got no more stick in the Eye than did any other press baron.
Other than the aformentioned baron and wannabee baron.




who ITYF are not Jewish.

No, it's not a case of making enemies: Macmillan was inherently enough of
a
snob to not want Butler, who he didn't regard as sufficiently upper
crust,
succeed him.

Butler didn't have the killer instinct and cunning which necessary for all
politicians to claw their way to the very top.

So MacMillan, by inference, posessed the killer instinct and cunning, but it
was off limits to take the **** out of him.


Singling out public figures from the stage in a public theatre and subjecting
them to ridicule is always off limits. Yes.


michael adams

....








--
Tim
http://tim-fenton.fotopic.net/
http://zelo-street.blogspot.com/

Euston Arch to be rebuilt as nightclub
 

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

The point I was making was simply that none of this was directly
attributable
to Harold MacMillan.

Did I assert that any of it was?

No. But the poster I was intially responding to, did,

At last a small concession.


OK Cook knew who he was ridiculing. But MacMillan should not have gone. A
little basic research would have put him straight.

So Cook was in the habit of singling out well known members of the
sudience
for ridicule was he ? He had a history of it, did he ? This being at a
time
when interviewers still used to call politicians "sir" on radio and TV.

Let me put you straight on one thing, Michael.

I'm not a naughty schoolboy, and if you persist in treating me like one, it
won't do you any good. Got that?

Cook's attitude to authority in general, and to Mac in particular, was well
known. Fact.

Other than that, the fact that Peter Cook chose to publicly and
knowingly
waste his latter years in a drink filled haze is entirely up to him.

As have many figures in the public eye, not least Churchill, Wilson,
Thatcher and goodness knows who else. Your point is?

First up, Churchill, Thatcher, and Wilson were at a relatively advanced
age
had lost General Elections and were no longer leading and would never
again
their parties.

Churchill spent much of WW2 in an alcoholic haze, and so he was indeed
"leading". Wilson had to have his fix to get through PMQs, and so he too was
leading. Thatcher's increasing use of the bottle, especially during the
difficult times domestically or when locked in negotiations with other
European and World leaders, has been aired many times. It was during the
period that she, too, was leading.

Unlike our Comedy Hero who had a good twenty more years
of writing and performing ahead of him.

You've got a problem with Cook. I realise that. I have no problem with you
calling him whatever you like. But I also am entitled to put a counter view
if I wish.

Singling out public figures from the stage in a public theatre and
subjecting
them to ridicule is always off limits. Yes.

It happened. He should not have gone. Get over it.

--
Tim
http://tim-fenton.fotopic.net/
http://zelo-street.blogspot.com/

Euston Arch to be rebuilt as nightclub
 

E27002 wrote:


Thank you. I agree. It is not, primarily, about the material.
Concrete can be used most effectively. My issue is with the
mentality that gave us Westway, Euston Station, and Centre Point.
For what type of humans where these structure built.


Westway's an interesting one - it was clearly massively destructive of
an established community, but also built and designed to very high
standards. It took 30 years or so for the city to come to terms with
it, but it's actually done so, and in a way that has actually
strengthened the community (and notably in ways that none of the
politicians, engineers and planners of the original road foresaw).

http://www.westway.org/about_us/history/#a

There's a rather fine music venue and club underneath it, for instance,
for which the lack of light and ambient noise are obviously not issues -
you can't hear the traffic when the amp's been turned up to
ear-splitting levels anyway, plus it doesn't have any upstairs
neighbours to annoy, because they're in cars.

What else? Centre Point's a fine piece of architecture let down by the
base of it being designed for a car-based city rather than a pedestrian
based one. This is finally being remedied as part of the TCR station
upgrade, which will arguably complete the job of integrating the
building with the city properly. There's a common thread linking CP and
Westway, which is insufficient attention paid to the interface between
old and new, which I grant you is a valid criticism of a lot of post war
planning.

Euston we've covered - by any stretch it's a better *railway station*
than the old Euston, and works as part of the city scape in a consistent
and rational manner - the side down Eversholt St. is a bit of an
eyesore, but the side of Kings Cross on York Way isn't much better than
a blank brick wall either, and nobody criticises KX for being what it is
- a functional, stripped down modern building (that happens to have been
built in the mid-19th century rather than the mid-20th century).

So I'm not sure what the point of that was. There are plenty of bad
examples of concrete use around, so why pick 2 good examples and one
fifty-fifty one?

Tom

Euston Arch to be rebuilt as nightclub
 

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009, michael adams wrote:

Singling out public figures from the stage in a public theatre and
subjecting them to ridicule is always off limits. Yes.

No, singling out public figures and subjecting them to ridicule is always
fine. In any context. That's part of what being a public figure means.

You really do have some very strange ideas.

tom

--
If a scientist were to cut his ear off, no one would take it as evidence
of heightened sensibility -- Peter Medawar

Euston Arch to be rebuilt as nightclub
 

In message , Tom Barry
writes

Westway's an interesting one - it was clearly massively destructive of
an established community, but also built and designed to very high
standards.

At the time (and I lived in the area then) it's real significance was as
a potential prelude to the destruction of huge swathes of housing for
the London motorway box. As a youngster living in West Kensington and
owning a car, it first seemed wonderful - but it very quickly became
obvious that the country couldn't afford schemes on that scale.

What was not realised back then was that much 19th-century housing in
the central area could be upgraded to very acceptable modern standards -
instead there was a presumption that people would be happier in the
outer suburbs - an idea that totally collapsed when rising oil and
transport costs made suburban living far less economic for those with
jobs in town.
--
Paul Terry

Euston Arch to be rebuilt as nightclub
 

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
th.li...
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009, michael adams wrote:

Singling out public figures from the stage in a public theatre and
subjecting them to ridicule is always off limits. Yes.

No, singling out public figures and subjecting them to ridicule is always
fine. In any context. That's part of what being a public figure means.

You really do have some very strange ideas.


So that anyone who believes they can make a positive contribution to society
and may become a public figure as a result, is a fair target for public
humilation and ridicule are they ?

Presumably they should instead do nothing except stay at home in front of
their computers in their pyjamas or underpants if they so choose where
while stuffing themselves with pizza or jaffa cakes they can safely type any
old rubbish they like, about anyone, even under an assumed name if they so
choose.

Isn't Usenet wonderful!



michael adams

....





tom

--
If a scientist were to cut his ear off, no one would take it as evidence
of heightened sensibility -- Peter Medawar

Euston Arch to be rebuilt as nightclub
 

Churchill spent much of WW2 in an alcoholic haze, and so he was indeed
"leading". Wilson had to have his fix to get through PMQs, and so he too was
leading. Thatcher's increasing use of the bottle, especially during the
difficult times domestically or when locked in negotiations with other
European and World leaders, has been aired many times. It was during the
period that she, too, was leading.

You're rather missing the point. In the cases you cite above, alcohol positively
helped those people to function effectively. In the case of Peter Cook his
increasing
liking for the booze prevented him from ever again doing any useful work. Spot the
difference ?


Remembering that Adolf Hitler was t-total.

Euston Arch to be rebuilt as nightclub
 

In message
allanbonnetracy wrote:



Churchill spent much of WW2 in an alcoholic haze, and so he was indeed
"leading". Wilson had to have his fix to get through PMQs, and so he
too was leading. Thatcher's increasing use of the bottle, especially
during the difficult times domestically or when locked in negotiations
with other European and World leaders, has been aired many times. It
was during the period that she, too, was leading.

You're rather missing the point. In the cases you cite above, alcohol
positively helped those people to function effectively. In the case of
Peter Cook his increasing liking for the booze prevented him from ever
again doing any useful work. Spot the difference ?


Remembering that Adolf Hitler was t-total.

Godwin!

(and it's teetotal)

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

Euston Arch to be rebuilt as nightclub
 

On 2009-09-28 18:58:23 +0100, Tom Anderson said:

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009, michael adams wrote:

Singling out public figures from the stage in a public theatre and
subjecting them to ridicule is always off limits. Yes.

No, singling out public figures and subjecting them to ridicule is
always fine. In any context. That's part of what being a public figure
means.

You really do have some very strange ideas.

tom

Being insulting to the person is childish, boorish and ill-mannered.
One may well have differences of opinion about policies, these can be
debated, but being rude is not acceptable. It was not as if Macmillan
had been found with his nose in the trough as some of our current crop
of MPs and peers are allegedly wont to do.
I remember the 'Establishment' incident as I was a 21 year old student
in London at the time - even then I found the incident left a bad taste
in the mouth.
--
Robert

Euston Arch to be rebuilt as nightclub
 

"allanbonnetracy" wrote in message
...


Churchill spent much of WW2 in an alcoholic haze, and so he was indeed
"leading". Wilson had to have his fix to get through PMQs, and so he too was
leading. Thatcher's increasing use of the bottle, especially during the
difficult times domestically or when locked in negotiations with other
European and World leaders, has been aired many times. It was during the
period that she, too, was leading.

You're rather missing the point. In the cases you cite above, alcohol positively
helped those people to function effectively. In the case of Peter Cook his
increasing
liking for the booze prevented him from ever again doing any useful work. Spot the
difference ?


Remembering that Adolf Hitler was t-total.


But he chewed carpets* instead.

Your point being ?


michael adams



*William Shirer "Rise and Fall of The Third Reich"
find the page yourself.

Euston Arch to be rebuilt as nightclub
 

On Sep 28, 3:38*am, "michael adams" wrote:

As is often the case after a Govt. has been in office for so long they often look
tired by comparison with a hungry opposition which also has never had the
opportunity to make mistakes. Or been subject to the vicissitudes of
"Events, dear boy events".

Your remark has merrit. Thirteen years was a long time. IIRC labor
made something of this at the time "Thirteen wasted years".

The point I was making was simply that none of this was directly attributable
to Harold MacMillan.

OTOH, turning the corrupt Marples loose on the UK’s transportation
system certainly was directly attributable to SuperMac. As was his
chancellor’s poor control of the money supply. And bating the
electorate was not an especially smart move. Although his statement
was correct. Most working class British Subjects were living life
styles undreamt of prior to WWII.

If anything caused the fall
of Macmillan as much as anything it was his being an easy target for
mimicry
starting with Peter Cook. More especially the humilation he suffered at
the hands of the arsehole Cook who directly insulted him from the satge
of "Beyond the Fringe".

Why would anybody with a shred of self respect want to pay to hear the
foul mouthed Cook? The BBC, and any other decent body that did so,
should be ashamed that they ever gave Cook a platform. If lowlifes
want to enjoy the right to free assembly and exchange their
distasteful verbiage, so be it. But, that venue was surely far below
endorsement by the presence Her Majesty's First Minister.

Euston Arch to be rebuilt as nightclub
 

On Sep 28, 10:28*am, Tom Barry wrote:
E27002 wrote:

Thank you. *I agree. *It is not, primarily, about the material.
Concrete can be used most effectively. *My issue is with the
mentality that gave us Westway, Euston Station, and Centre Point.
For what type of humans where these structure built.

Westway's an interesting one - it was clearly massively destructive of
an established community, but also built and designed to very high
standards. *It took 30 years or so for the city to come to terms with
it, but it's actually done so, and in a way that has actually
strengthened the community (and notably in ways that none of the
politicians, engineers and planners of the original road foresaw).

http://www.westway.org/about_us/history/#a

London works as a high density metropolis. It was not built for
cars. Had the rest of the ringway been build London would not have
been to same City. You may find that desirable. I don't.

What else? *Centre Point's a fine piece of architecture let down by the
base of it being designed for a car-based city rather than a pedestrian
based one. *This is finally being remedied as part of the TCR station
upgrade, which will arguably complete the job of integrating the
building with the city properly. *There's a common thread linking CP and
Westway, which is insufficient attention paid to the interface between
old and new, which I grant you is a valid criticism of a lot of post war
planning.

IMHO, Centre Point is out of place. It lacks sympathy with its
surroundings. Although the main issue, as you say, is its base. It
belongs next to a Freeway exit, not a subway station.

Euston we've covered - by any stretch it's a better *railway station*
than the old Euston, and works as part of the city scape in a consistent
and rational manner - the side down Eversholt St. is a bit of an
eyesore, but the side of Kings Cross on York Way isn't much better than
a blank brick wall either, and nobody criticises KX for being what it is
- a functional, stripped down modern building (that happens to have been
built in the mid-19th century rather than the mid-20th century).

Euston is somewhat functional. I prefer, the rebuilt, Liverpool
Street as an example of what can be done. King's Cross is a great
historical monument. I am not convinced that it functions especially
well as a railway station. :-)

So I'm not sure what the point of that was. *There are plenty of bad
examples of concrete use around, so why pick 2 good examples and one
fifty-fifty one?


Sure, there are plenty of other examples. The discussion was about
the merits of rebuilding the Euston "Arch", albeit in concrete. I
think that would be a good thing. It was destroyed by people with the
same mentality that gave the UK so much, IMHO, bad architecture. I
cited three examples of utilitarian 1960s structures that look, to me,
as if they were built for robots.

Euston Arch to be rebuilt as nightclub
 

On Sep 28, 10:58*am, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009, michael adams wrote:
Singling out public figures from the stage in a public theatre and
subjecting them to ridicule is always off limits. Yes.

No, singling out public figures and subjecting them to ridicule is always
fine. In any context. That's part of what being a public figure means.

You really do have some very strange ideas.

Until Michael pointed it out, I had been unaware of Harold MacMillan's
WWI record. That alone commands respect. It makes him a better man
than me. He is certainly superior cook. But, why in the world put
himself in the firing line of cook's abuse.

Euston Arch to be rebuilt as nightclub
 

On Sep 28, 11:36*am, Paul Terry wrote:
In message , Tom Barry
writes

Westway's an interesting one - it was clearly massively destructive of
an established community, but also built and designed to very high
standards.

At the time (and I lived in the area then) it's real significance was as
a potential prelude to the destruction of huge swathes of housing for
the London motorway box. As a youngster living in West Kensington and
owning a car, it first seemed wonderful - but it very quickly became
obvious that the country couldn't afford schemes on that scale.

What was not realised back then was that much 19th-century housing in
the central area could be upgraded to very acceptable modern standards -
instead there was a presumption that people would be happier in the
outer suburbs - an idea that totally collapsed when rising oil and
transport costs made suburban living far less economic for those with
jobs in town.


We can be grateful that the destruction ceased when it did. London
was saved from a horrible fate.

Euston Arch to be rebuilt as nightclub
 

In message
E27002 wrote:

On Sep 28, 11:36*am, Paul Terry wrote:
In message , Tom Barry
writes

Westway's an interesting one - it was clearly massively destructive of
an established community, but also built and designed to very high
standards.

At the time (and I lived in the area then) it's real significance was as
a potential prelude to the destruction of huge swathes of housing for
the London motorway box. As a youngster living in West Kensington and
owning a car, it first seemed wonderful - but it very quickly became
obvious that the country couldn't afford schemes on that scale.

What was not realised back then was that much 19th-century housing in
the central area could be upgraded to very acceptable modern standards -
instead there was a presumption that people would be happier in the
outer suburbs - an idea that totally collapsed when rising oil and
transport costs made suburban living far less economic for those with
jobs in town.


We can be grateful that the destruction ceased when it did. London
was saved from a horrible fate.

Not applicable to you Adrian, but anyone else interested might like to hunt
out a recent BBC/OU programme on iPlayer, Saving the Market. All about the
campaign to save Covent Garden from demolition, has a lot about the proposed
inner urban motorway box we nearly got in the centre of London.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

Euston Arch to be rebuilt as nightclub
 

"E27002" wrote in message
...
On Sep 28, 3:38 am, "michael adams" wrote:

- Why would anybody with a shred of self respect want to pay to hear the
- foul mouthed Cook?

- The BBC, and any other decent body that did so,
- should be ashamed that they ever gave Cook a platform. If lowlifes
- want to enjoy the right to free assembly and exchange their
- distasteful verbiage, so be it. But, that venue was surely far below
- endorsement by the presence Her Majesty's First Minister.

You're totally out of synch. Which I'm afraid casts a lot of doubt on
many of your other judgements.

At that stage of his career Peter Cook was in no way foul-mouthed. The
foul-mouthed stuff only first emerged with the Derek and Clive tapes.
From memory ,and without any googling these were recorded by the pair
when half ****ed and first emerged as pseudo bootlegs i.e as never intended
for wider dissemination - possibly as a marketing exercise. This was much
much later. I repeat much, much, later.

The Macmillan thing happened in the middle of a run of "Beyond The Fringe".
Beyond the Fringe was only the latest of a series of review shows to which
Cook had contributed sketches. The main difference being that instead
of poking fun at middle class manners and mores it also poked fun at dearly
held national myths and at national institutions. There was the famous "Futile
Gesture" sketch where dressed as RAF Officers one of the cast Miller or Cook
says something along the lines of "Well Smithers, we've decided we need
someone to make a futile gesture and you're lucky enough to have been chosen".
"Oh thank you sir". (So famous that this is possibly totally wrong). BTF first
ran at the Fortune Theatre which is presumably where Macmillan attended the
show. It also later ran in New York.

As has been succinctly pointed out by another poster, what was really
offensive about Cooks behaviour was that he was confusing the person
(regardless of Macmillan's merits as a soldier or publisher) with the
office he held only during working hours. Plus the fact that in
attending in a private capacity Macmillan was caught totally off guard
whereas there's no knowing how long Cook had been aware of his presence -
even a minute would do so as to come up with his insulting remark.
Had it been in the middle of Prime Ministers Questions then Macmillan
would have been fair game but as it was, it was totally unsporting.
It would require a trip to the library to refresh my memory as to what
Cook is reported to have actually said, but it was deeply personal
along the lines of "I'm so stupid and senile I've come along tonight
to see myself being made a fool of". In Cook's Macmillan voice.
It's a bit post modernist in one sense but it would have worked
equally well in a far less insulting context.


michael adams

....

Euston Arch to be rebuilt as nightclub
 

E27002 wrote:

We can be grateful that the destruction ceased when it did. London
was saved from a horrible fate.

I have heard that the destruction of the Euston arch was instrumental in
turning public opinion against the destruction.

Euston Arch to be rebuilt as nightclub
 

On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 08:22:38PM -0700, E27002 wrote:

IMHO, Centre Point is out of place. It lacks sympathy with its
surroundings. Although the main issue, as you say, is its base. It
belongs next to a Freeway exit, not a subway station.

The surroundings would still be a mixture of ugly and boring even if
Centre Point didn't exist. The Astoria and the shops north of it up to
the junction have been tatty rubbish for as long as I can remember, just
as the first few shops south of Centre Point on the opposite side of
Charing Cross Road are. On t'other side of the junction, there's still
nothing interesting, and a supremely ugly front to the Dominion theatre,
made even worse by the hideous statue advertising We Will Rock You.

Centre Point is the one interesting building in the immediate area.

(no, I don't think that St Giles church is particularly interesting,
although from one particular angle its spire and Centre Point look very
pretty next to each other)

Sure, there are plenty of other examples. The discussion was about
the merits of rebuilding the Euston "Arch", albeit in concrete. I
think that would be a good thing. It was destroyed by people with the
same mentality that gave the UK so much, IMHO, bad architecture.

Who destroyed it has no bearing on whether it should be rebuilt. You
might as well say that "because a nasty man destroyed the slums of
[insert city here] we should rebuild the slums". The Euston arch should
be approached in the same way as any other new building and built, or
not built, on its merits as a building.

--
David Cantrell | Bourgeois reactionary pig

The voices said it's a good day to clean my weapons

Euston Arch to be rebuilt as nightclub
 

On Sep 29, 3:44*am, "Basil Jet"
wrote:
E27002 wrote:

We can be grateful that the destruction ceased when it did. *London
was saved from a horrible fate.

I have heard that the destruction of the Euston arch was instrumental in
turning public opinion against the destruction.

IIRC St Pancras was on the agenda for demolition. Sir John Betjeman
mounted a campaign for its preservation and the tide turned.

Euston Arch to be rebuilt as nightclub
 

On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 08:17:14 -0700 (PDT), E27002
wrote:

On Sep 29, 3:44*am, "Basil Jet"
wrote:
E27002 wrote:

We can be grateful that the destruction ceased when it did. *London
was saved from a horrible fate.

I have heard that the destruction of the Euston arch was instrumental in
turning public opinion against the destruction.

IIRC St Pancras was on the agenda for demolition. Sir John Betjeman
mounted a campaign for its preservation and the tide turned.

It's not well known outside New York that Jackie Kennedy mounted the
campaign to preserve Grand Central after Penn had been demolished and
replaced by Madison Square Garden with the station in the basement.

That was an act of vandalism because the station was on a par with the
best in Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NYP_LOC4.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NYP_LOC5.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Penn_Station1.jpg

Euston Arch to be rebuilt as nightclub
 

On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 11:26:26 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
wrote:

On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 08:17:14 -0700 (PDT), E27002
wrote:

On Sep 29, 3:44*am, "Basil Jet"
wrote:
E27002 wrote:

We can be grateful that the destruction ceased when it did. *London
was saved from a horrible fate.

I have heard that the destruction of the Euston arch was instrumental in
turning public opinion against the destruction.

IIRC St Pancras was on the agenda for demolition. Sir John Betjeman
mounted a campaign for its preservation and the tide turned.

It's not well known outside New York that Jackie Kennedy mounted the
campaign to preserve Grand Central after Penn had been demolished and
replaced by Madison Square Garden with the station in the basement.

That was an act of vandalism because the station was on a par with the
best in Europe.

However, it was a major tax liability with no income so far as the
Penn Central (or was it just the Pennsylvania Railroad then). It
would have taken major work to fix all of the deferred maintenance,
probably to be presented with a bigger tax bill. Grand Central was a
good case of "You must spend money for something I want" philosophy.
If historic preservation is to succeed, then it must be economically
financed. There may well have to be tax breaks, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NYP_LOC4.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NYP_LOC5.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Penn_Station1.jpg

Euston Arch to be rebuilt as nightclub
 

On 28 Sep, 11:38, "michael adams" wrote:
"Tim Fenton" wrote in message

Maybe not. Its just unfortunate that two of the Eyes biggest adversaries/betes noir
down the years Maxwell and Goldsmith both happened to be Jewish and also
"pushy outsiders". Not that the latter applies to all Jewish people by any means
of course. Quite possibly there were some Jewish boys at Shrewsbury but OTTOMH
I can't recall any notable Jewish contributors to the Eye having been identified
as such. Ever.

Barry Fantoni.