let'em eat amotal

[Dennis Jones]

  Again, London is not like your 
>typical big city.  Even in the Eastend, even in the Docklands, you have 
>and had Lords and Ladies (though more in the past than now) living amongs 
>the dockworkers.  Moving the target offered zero assurance of avoiding 
>ANYBODY.  It's disproved by the very facts of the city.
>
>I'm not arguing that the British were incapable of doing what the theory 
>suggests.  I am saying that they were smart enough to see that any input 
>they could impart would have no possibility of doing anything useful.  
>Assuming that the War Office was not entirely populated by psychotics, 
>they had no reason to do what is imputed.
>-----------------------------
 I think we've just about flogged this one to death, but just as a parting 
shot are you really saying that they would have percieved no overall 
'benefit' whatsoever by attempting to move the bullseye thus? Of course the 
picture is, as you point out, far from being a clear cut one and you 
obviously now your London, but how many Harrods branches are there in Tower 
Hamlets land when it comes down to it? Surely percentage-wise  they may have 
judged it to be worth their while . Anyway, who knows, maybe one day the 
details will emerge.
                     d.j. 

P.S. Actually, on first reading the Gwenhidwy passage in GR, what really 
sprang to mind was the standard explanation given to us in social history 
classes: cities separate out socio-economically as the more affluent do all 
they can to get upwind of all the stench and filth (as well as away from the 
poor, of course). In the British Isles the prevailing winds are 
predominantly westerly or south-westerly so to the West of cities is the 
place to be. Even London, for all its complications, tends to obey this rule 
it seems to me.