D
Deleted member 23270
Guest
Agree it is a ridiculous amount of money and I'm sure Bob the builder could do it for £50 but I am detecting a few 'non London' chips on shoulders here.
And there is the post that actually proves my point to be right Jacko..
You don't like differing opinion or comparison you'll just keep repeating yourself telling others they're wrong. Quite sad really ??
Agree it is a ridiculous amount of money and I'm sure Bob the builder could do it for £50 but I am detecting a few 'non London' chips on shoulders here.
Nope I don't live anywhere near London.Shoe on the other foot perhaps.
?
Nope I don't live anywhere near London.
my old company used to insure some of the PFI contracts and the numbers involved were truly eye watering
Correct they bring money to London which stays in London. A clock given an £80 makeover, where else in Britain would that happen??? Absolutely nowhere.
Tax payers money wasted.
a big difference between a 1000 year old Cathedral and a victorian clock towerWhy not replace all the antiquated working parts with a modern digital clock while retaining the original external appearance?
The audio aspects could easily be electronically simulated.
If the tower itself is structurally unsound, I'd think twice about not fixing it.
A great cathedral burned down in Paris. As a secular person, I still think that was a terrible thing.
When you stop restoring your cultural landmarks, you get closer and closer to becoming American.
You don't want that.
a big difference between a 1000 year old Cathedral and a victorian clock tower
The Palace of Westminster is a UNESCO world heritage site. It would be bizarre not to maintain it.a big difference between a 1000 year old Cathedral and a victorian clock tower
Why not replace all the antiquated working parts with a modern digital clock while retaining the original external appearance?
The audio aspects could easily be electronically simulated.
It is an iconic building for the nation so does need to be looked after. I'm sure I could have done the repairs for £75m though, still making a tidy profit .
How can it really cost that much? It is scary how these figures are thrown around.
Would tourists stop coming to London if the Elizabeth Tower fell down and wasn't rebuilt, or if the London residence of the Monarch was converted into a hotel?
hasn't it been covered over for the last few years so no one could see it anyway, yet tourists still flocked. you could have reolaced it with a giant inflatable and a doubt they would have noticedProbably... What's the point of Paris without the Eifel Tower or Sydney minus the Opera House/Harbour Bridge?
London is the capital of the UK and one of the most important cities on the planet. A multicultural hub of history, tourism, economics, science and the arts. Big Ben is one of the most famous sights in London and clearly deserves this money.
If you think London shouldn't get special attention then you're the one that needs your head checking
hasn't it been covered over for the last few years so no one could see it anyway, yet tourists still flocked. you could have reolaced it with a giant inflatable and a doubt they would have noticed
London may be your capital it's certainly not my capital.
I didn't say it was mine either, did I? That's irrelevent. I simply stated a fact. As the capital of the UK it deserves extra investment. In fact in terms of what London brings in from business, tourism and taxes it's a drop in the ocean.