Robert Wakeham's comments
Boris's arrogance knows no bounds - but then, what should anyone expect from someone who, in old-fashioned parlance, could be termed a 'bounder'?
Actually, a blusterer might be more accurate just now - someone who's been found out telling porkies (more often than not a naughty child, but Boris is a powerful politician, and accountable for his behaviour to both the electorate and the law).
Who's going to tell the Department for Transport spokesperson the facts of life?
That the river Thames in central London already counts as an 'iconic outdoor space' - about as iconic as it gets - and that we need this mega folly planted on it about as much as we need a machiavellian finance minister preaching one thing in public and doing the opposite (with our money) on the sly, we need a devious and manipulative trick-cyclist of a politician two-timing as both Mayor of London and a Member of Parliament while manoeuvring for the top job, or we need a Prime Minister from whom no-one in their right mind would buy a second hand car.
David Cameron's 'eye of mordor' has obviously spotted a chance to indulge in a headline catching populist gesture, but this might backfire badly at a time when the supposedly flaky Jeremy Corbyn is being perceived as a great deal more straightforward - as demonstrated by the news of phenomenal increases in labour party membership around the country.
Ben Addy's remarks show rather more sensitivity to the context than shown by Thomas Heatherwick's butchering of the coal drops.
The dismal chunk of drab new development looming over the street appears to have about as much refinement as a high bay warehouse - but then maybe a lot of new student accommodation is just that.
What on earth do Broadway Malyan think they're doing? - for the city council to believe that this is good for Liverpool adds to the suspicion that there's a serious 'civilisation deficit' in this city, further reinforced by the Mayor's belief that SAVE's bid for judicial review of the planning approval was based on spurious grounds.
I hadn't realised that London is needing a new flood barrier, but there might be a great opportunity here to help those boroughs that are facing increasing public criticism of the fashion for digging massive basements under houses.
How about legislation (preferably retrospective) to ensure that all such basements can act as flood containment structures in time of need?
Should the Thames start to lap into a street, the basement capacity could make all the difference to the degree of flooding.
Damage to basements would be minimised if they were were designed with robust materials and finishes (and not for underground living or sleeping accommodation) so that they could be easily pumped out and cleaned.
Not so fanciful, when you consider that this dual use of basement space is already being promoted by the Dutch - and anyone in London creating an elaborate basement beneath their house is most unlikely to be able to plead poverty.
'Enrich London' my foot - if built it'll be a £175 million (and counting) government sponsored privately controlled vanity statement in a time of government enforced austerity - to be imposed on the existing river scape, and I suspect in time likely to be seen as a monumental folly, symbolising a 'look at me' culture of excess that valued superficial 'flash' over the nurturing of a fair and cohesive society in this land.
This critique of government policy just compounds the evidence of dogma-driven damage to a wide range of what until recently have been seen traditionally as core public sector responsibilities, from health services to flood protection.
The excuse seems to be the need to 'cut out the fat' in a time of extreme austerity, but the main driver - the Treasury, in the shape of the ambitious and manipulative Mr Osborne - is now well into the process of 'throwing out the baby with the bathwater', and I wonder who will eventually be struggling to prevent the baby from drowning?
Surely not Mr Osborne, whose own taxpayer-funded support for the vanity Garden Bridge projects suggests an underlying honesty deficit (to put it politely).
'Procedural irregularities'? - Boris Johnson? - whatever next?
Compare this with the Garden Bridge - Peckham really does need all the help it can get, but - sadly - this project doesn't have the 'look at me' in-your-face 'wow factor' that's so seemingly irresistible to the vain, the greedy, the devious and the unscrupulous (especially when they can raid our pockets to help achieve their monumental ambitions).