Even by their standards, they're on ridiculous form at the moment. The thing that's got them really lathered is the proposal by Westminster Council to charge for parking in the West End at weekends and at night. They seem to have something every day on it. Even when there's no news. Today for example, they managed to get a leading article out of a remark by a Cabinet Minister most people have never even heard of, Lord Strathclyde. His Lordship described parking for free in the West End as one of the "joys of living". You'd think a serious newspaper would tell him to get out more, but the Standard says it hits the button or something similarly daft.

Because, it continues, it's a "tax on the theatre, a tax on nightlife and a tax on going to church". Because it's nothing to do with parking or anything. And even if it were those things, it would still be preferable to the tax on being sick (prescription charges), which the Standard seem OK with.

Unfortunately, Westminster have said they'll abolish the charges if there's evidence the West End is suffering. Cue an article a day of dubious evidence.

Is there any chance of the Standard actually concerning itself with people who live in London rather than commuters?

Oh joy, I got to read the Standard again when I was having coffee today. There were merely 2 two big sections on the proposed parking charges. And two of those short "letters" that look like texts. It's still a "tax on entertainment", despite no-one taxing me the last time I got the bus into the West End.

They wheeled out Chinatown tonight, with 3 pictures of the hard working Chinese who'd allegedly lose out if the charges came in. Though most Standard readers (in other circumstances) wouldn't give a toss about Chinese businesses. It's not as if Chinatown is any good, for the most part. If we get less traffic and lose a couple of fairly generic restaurants, I'll take that. One of the interviewees moaned about the Congestion Charge, which doesn't apply when these new charges will.

It also seems that people going to church won't pay to park, seeing it starts at 1pm on a Sunday. Never mind, we'll still see that canard, I'm sure.

And its terse text writers had no truck with this wishy-washy "the rioters hated the police stuff". Apparently, the survey by the LSE/Guardian only interviewed a small number of people. And they were criminals anyway.

So amateur psychology, whereby nobody at all was interviewed, is a better guide.

I sometimes find a copy on the train and feel gloomy about how much the Standard has changed since I lived in London. From ho-hum to shite.

You're right about Chinatown. There are maybe 4 or 5 absolute stand out restaurants, but most are as you say bog-standard generic Cantonese unremarkable.

Manchester's Chinatown is miles better, so I hear.

_________________
I'm a nasty, violent lefty. You cunt.

Headline involves the Tax on Nightlife.

Which doesn't even need inverted commas now. Despite being demonstrably false.

An economics think tank reckons it will cost 5,000 jobs. They look like a credible thinktank (the CEBR) but I'd be amazed if that were true. Or that it wasn't possible to charge only on the busier nights, and maybe spread the traffic about.

You don't fuck with people's cars in this country, do you?

How many parking spaces are affected anyway?

Christian Wolmar unimpressed by the Standard's research.

http://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/2011/1 ... economics/

In the meantime, having printed my letter a couple of months ago about how local authorities don't run schools, the Standard opinion writer makes the same mistake again. And repeats the Gove "opponents are ideologues" line. it's not that they don't want to take money away from other schools in the area or anything.

Sarah Sands praises academies for breaking down the barriers between private and state schools, and says some rubbish about the left hating private schools more than anything except foxhunting. How did the poor private schools fend off the fury of Tony Blair, eh?

More high standard stuff on the mayoral race. With added Tower Hamlets:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard- ... he-east.do

I'm sure there are some cunts around, but I haven't yet seen any evidence Lutfur Rahman is orchestrating them. Nor that their shit is ignored. See this from a year ago:

http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/n ... g_1_812143

Public gallery closed after allegations of homophobic abuse. No mention in the Standard article.

And this:



Is a fucking incredible distortion. See the White Swan's website for an explanation



Crap policy (sex establishment to me suggests massage parlours, advertised openly all over the place, and apparently OK). But not "targeting" gays at all. Anyway, this is called "family values" when white people support these policies.

Throw in the usual "being anti-Israel is racist" too. And write up Tory councillor and Andrew Gilligan uncritically and don't contract Rahman or Livingstone to comment. And hey presto.

This, btw, is the Lutfur Rahman who voted for David Milliband as Labour leader. A Jew and Foreign Secretary while Iraq and Afghanistan were occupied.

I'm probably a lone wolf on this thread, but the Standard waited a whole 24 hours before publishing another article (by a Tory) suggesting The White Swan is being targeted for being a gay pub, not because all pubs with strippers (gay and straight) are being targeted.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ ... hts-ken.do

I am complaining about this bollocks.

More high standards from the Standard:



Yeah, I bet the cost of a conference runs the cost of tax avoidance/evasion close.

And the bastards for going to Italy not Luxembourg eh? All that money they're wasting.... by going to a cheaper country.

And Argentina! That's miles away! Miles from us anyway. Possibly less so for some of the other countries attending, but hey!