Fwd: Re: let'em eat amotal

[Burgess, John]

Clearly you don't have a very good picture of London.

Unlike almost any other major city, London is distinctive exactly because 
it doesn't really HAVE posh/poor areas.  Other than a general slide down 
the economic scale in the Eastend (which encompasses the docklands), 
London housing was and is notable for the fact that while on one block 
there may be very expensive houses, on the next will be squalid little 
apartments and sheds.  The rich have rubbed elbows with the poor in 
London at least since the 12th Century. 

Today, you'll find more economic segregation, but only when you move way 
out of the city.  Eaton Square, as an instance, has among the most 
expensive property in the world, with 3 BR apartments going for 850,000 
Pounds Sterling, for a 19-year _lease_.  Exactly behind that square are 
council estates where the rents are city (of Westminster) subsidized 
council flats. 

There are and there were bad areas, but nothing so geographically 
distinct that one could effectively 'redirect' incoming V2s.

I perfectly understand the thrust of the original "them" post on the 
subject. I'm saying that it makes no real sense.  With the V2's innate 
lack of precision -- even by its designers and launchers -- the moving of 
its putative ground zero by anyone in the Brit gov't offered absolutely 
no assurance of hitting an "undesirable" target.  

In other words, the argument works only if you ignore basic, geographic 
and sociological facts of London.

Regards.