I remember Yuppification in spades. Colleagues bought huge loft apartments in Docklands back in the early 90s and there were no shops or pubs around them to go to - or the wrong end of Liverpool St station with drip tray pints. It was a wasteland. They made a mint on them.
When you take a ride on the DLR from Bank to Canary Wharf, perhaps the defining feature is the absolute lack of middle-of-the-road residential properties. All you see are luxury apartments and run-down 1960s tenements. A slight exaggeration, but not much.
But remember what it was like in the early 80s? I do. the Docklands was an utter wasteland. Empty. Bewilderingly desolate. Ditto many parts of the South Bank, especially by Tower Bridge, also Wapping, Kings Cross, and so on.
All those who decry the advance of London seem to forget that, even if parts of it are a bit grim now, entire boroughs were total and utter toilets about 30 years ago.
Indeed. I actually lived in Wapping in the early 80s. It was an ex-council block of Victorian tenements, a place so rough and rundown even council tenants refused to live there, so it was turned into "hard to let" flats (remember those?!) which were rented out to students like me and my pal, for about £5 a week. Literally.
Wapping was almost indescribably deserted then. I remember walking up Garnet Street (where Alf got his name, apparently) then down Wapping High Street to the Tube, on winter mornings. It was so quiet I could hear my own footsteps echoing on the cobbles. A mist hung over everything, drifting off the river.
It was poetic and Dickensian and slightly mystical, but it was also fecking depressing if you had a hangover. And the idea of staying there MORE than a few months was just too grim. We left.
Now it is gleaming new flats and posh gastrobars and it hums with prosperity. My old block is now multimillion quid flats, of course. And no one has been kicked out cause, 30 years ago, no one lived there (apart from drunken students dropping acid).
I've spent a long time professionally doing this and not scaring the horses. Some folks like scaring them - IMO Kippers. They revel in it. That's fine, but has it's limitations emotionally. I love the thrill of change - but most don't. Until Kippers get that, they'll be a protest vote.
When you take a ride on the DLR from Bank to Canary Wharf, perhaps the defining feature is the absolute lack of middle-of-the-road residential properties. All you see are luxury apartments and run-down 1960s tenements. A slight exaggeration, but not much.
But remember what it was like in the early 80s? I do. the Docklands was an utter wasteland. Empty. Bewilderingly desolate. Ditto many parts of the South Bank, especially by Tower Bridge, also Wapping, Kings Cross, and so on.
All those who decry the advance of London seem to forget that, even if parts of it are a bit grim now, entire boroughs were total and utter toilets about 30 years ago.
And before that they did not have toilets. What you are both talking about is change and lets remember there are always unscrupulous chancers willing to take advantage of the problems of change.
The Thatcher era had good things and bad (well less good) things, but what it represented was change, necessary change. And with change comes turmoil. We need to stop listening to the chancers and loonies and realise that what is nimportant is managing change. Funnily enough what's always struck me is that that's what the 'conservative' party has always been about.
'It's so surreal. A friend bought a loft in Docklands in 1996 for £200k. £200k !?!?!??!?!'
I bought a one bedroom flat in Holland Park mid 70's for a whopping £8,000 together with a fixed rate mortgage from the Royal Borough of K & C. It was the end of the 70's property crash and Holland Park was just starting to be gentrified. .
Richard Nabavi: You are talking rubbish on extradition. If we had remained opted out of the EAW, I've no doubt that we could have had appropriate extradition treaties with other EU countries.
And, if not, well we'd have survived. But at least it would have meant that British citizens would enjoy the advantages of British criminal law.
And I'm well aware that it would also mean that we could not pursue people who fled abroad. But, as you put it, governing is about choosing. And May should have chosen to put the interests of the British first.
Whereas in this case, the victim of a crime - a very serious crime - is facing the prospect of being prosecuted for reporting that crime. Given the very strong efforts that are being made to encourage the victims of sexual abuse to come forward, what message do you think such a case sends out?
There are lots of cases where someone charged with rape is acquitted. It does not follow that the victim is then prosecuted for making a false allegation. Such a reaction would be absurd and contrary to the public interest. It is only in the most serious of cases that such action is even contemplated by the CPS. And as you will be aware there was the very recent tragic case of a young woman who killed herself when faced with exactly that prospect.
May should tell the Italian Justice Minister that we are not going to extradite the victims of rape, that we expect the Italian police to investigate this crime thoroughly and that it is only if there is evidence which would justify the CPS here bringing a charge of obstructing the course of justice (taking into account the public interest in doing so etc) - to be tested by the CPS here according the British criminal legal standards - will we even contemplate extradition.
Comments
I've spent a long time professionally doing this and not scaring the horses. Some folks like scaring them - IMO Kippers. They revel in it. That's fine, but has it's limitations emotionally. I love the thrill of change - but most don't. Until Kippers get that, they'll be a protest vote.
'It's so surreal. A friend bought a loft in Docklands in 1996 for £200k. £200k !?!?!??!?!'
I bought a one bedroom flat in Holland Park mid 70's for a whopping £8,000 together with a fixed rate mortgage from the Royal Borough of K & C.
It was the end of the 70's property crash and Holland Park was just starting to be gentrified. .
And, if not, well we'd have survived. But at least it would have meant that British citizens would enjoy the advantages of British criminal law.
And I'm well aware that it would also mean that we could not pursue people who fled abroad. But, as you put it, governing is about choosing. And May should have chosen to put the interests of the British first.
Whereas in this case, the victim of a crime - a very serious crime - is facing the prospect of being prosecuted for reporting that crime. Given the very strong efforts that are being made to encourage the victims of sexual abuse to come forward, what message do you think such a case sends out?
There are lots of cases where someone charged with rape is acquitted. It does not follow that the victim is then prosecuted for making a false allegation. Such a reaction would be absurd and contrary to the public interest. It is only in the most serious of cases that such action is even contemplated by the CPS. And as you will be aware there was the very recent tragic case of a young woman who killed herself when faced with exactly that prospect.
May should tell the Italian Justice Minister that we are not going to extradite the victims of rape, that we expect the Italian police to investigate this crime thoroughly and that it is only if there is evidence which would justify the CPS here bringing a charge of obstructing the course of justice (taking into account the public interest in doing so etc) - to be tested by the CPS here according the British criminal legal standards - will we even contemplate extradition.