Lord Rogers cries like a baby over Prince Charles

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Biped, Jun 16, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Biped

    Biped LE Book Reviewer


    Lord Rogers, the Labour enobled architect has spat his dummy right across the shop floor over Prince Charles' 'unconstitutional' interference in his bid to knock out a bunch of sh!t looking buildings for the Qataris.

    The Champagne Socialist and fav' of the Labour Party, who was given a seat in the Lords by Labour has whined and moaned (as have many of his Labour luvvie friends) about this unelected Prince's naughty influence with foreign Princes and Royal families (lummy, who'd a thunk it eh?).


    Lord Rogers (not actually elected into anything or any place by the erm, electorate said that the Prince has no right to interfere with democratic decisions on planning . . . . . . forgetting that using his own name and influence with Labour luvvies to get the planning department to kiss his arrse amounts to the very same peddling of influence that he accuses Prince Charles of.

    The good news is that this is the SECOND Lord Rogers-inspired carbunkle that the Good Prince has managed to stop in its tracks.

    Let's be honest about this - the Lord Rogers buildings were monstrosities that not many people at all liked, including the 400 local residents who wrote into the planning office to register their complaints (not that THEY had a democratic voice or anything), they were all the same, they were all ugly, they all cut out a load of light, they all harked back to a 1960's architectural idealism which has already been shown to provide society with crime-rich ghettos from the once-green and verdant grass at ground level all the way up to the piss-stinking lift shafts and stairwells to the mouldering walls at roof level. That is the legacy of him kind and their Labour luvvie idealist backers. The tower blocks of the 50's, 60's and 70's - thankfully, most of them knocked down now.

    JUST because he's a celebrated luvvie architect and a darling of the left, and JUST because he's a Lord, and JUST because his design includes 'lost of steel and glass' does not make these buildings pretty, in keeping with London, livable, or have any kind of decent shelf life in terms of habitability.

    I don't hate his design because he's a luvvie Labour ponce, or that he peddles his influence amongst the idealists and ruling party to get his own way, or that he cries like a baby when he's outflanked by the Prince of the Realm using one of his own moves - I hate his design because it's sh!t - and the initial, sketched proposal by Prince Charles and HIS architect are a considerable improvement - with a lot more light at ground level, a lot more friendly open spaces between the buildings, and a lot longer lasting stone buildings as opposed to 'glass and steel'.

    Prince Charles is a man who stands by his convictions, defends what is right, and is a good deal more ecologically friendly than 'The Ponce Rogers'.

    Anyway, that's my thoughts on the matter: Dry your eyes Rogers, you lost, London won. End of.
  2. Chazzer 2, Cry Baby 0. Good result.
  3. I wish Charlie had done that with the selling of the Duke of Yorks.

    I loved that building. They could have even just taken Cavalry House and use that for some waste-of-space art gallery...

    Glad that he knows when to put the boot in though :wink:
  4. It could be that the Royals are finally losing patience with the bunch of over-promoted non-entities that currently misrun us. It is widely reported that The Queen was mightily pissed off about the D-Day fiasco.
  5. Would be no bad thing, all these cry's of constitutional crisis every time an opinion comes from the monarchy about anything other than parliamentary business is a load of tosh.

    Lord Rodgers go take your head for a wobble
  6. Good to see others beside myself hate Rogers and his ex mate Foster. In the Victorian Times we celebrated the achievements of men who built and designed great structures, Brunel, & Stevenson now we forget the people who make things possible and give adoration to attention seeking tossers like Rogers. Do you remember the millennium bridge Rogers was claiming all the credit for it and how clever he was to make it so slim, suddenly when the bridge wobbled he disassociated himself quickly.
  7. Good, good. Now we just need HMQ to send Phil The Greek down to Parliament to knock some heads together. All those in favour of Prince Phil as the next Speaker?
  8. ashie et al will be along shortly to tell us that, unlike the Prince, Milord Rogers has a right to speak.

    You see people like Milord were put into place by the Dear Leader (& before him the Great Leader) who were democratically elected. Therefore Milord, Lord Rumba of Rio, the Kinnocks etc are our, the people's, choices!

    Hoorah for the Dear Leader!
  9. not cynical at all there then :wink:
  10. Being fair (IMHO) the Wobbly Bridge or the (now defunct, hey what prior planning) Eurostar Terminal at Waterloo are striking & aesthetically pleasing works of architecture & they suit the places they are in. I'd add the Gherkin & Canary Wharf to this list too.

    What was wrong with the Chelsea proposals, apart from the possible economic unviability of the plans in the current market, was their incongruity when set against the style of the rest of the area.

    However what cares NuLab for the past? The Royal Hospital is a symbol of the Forces of Conservatism, warmongering and Old Britain, not Cool Britannia.
  11. M'lord Rogers is arguably the most hypocritical egotistic media-whore ever to taint the good name of architecture.

    His eye-watering arrogance know's no bounds and I'm glad that some common sense was injected into this monstrosity rather than it being given the green light that all his other 'masterpieces' have afforded.

    It's a sad indictment on the whole industry that Liarbour seem to be starstruck by this man, like young girls at a Jonas Brothers concert. But why? Why does the enobled one have such influence? God knows!

    The Millenium Bridge debacle just about sums it up for me. Create the first pedestrian bridge over the Thames in over a century, it wobbles (sorry oscillates) badly and then he shrugs it off and blames the builders etc. etc.

    'Discovered' it and it had happened before. Oops! he must have missed that one then!

    Buy some tissues and do one blubber boy. How dare someone, including the heir to the throne, criticise his fantastic an innovate high rise flats. Errr!

    He's having a fecking laugh isn't he? Talk about Pot & Kettle.
  12. Well done Charlie.

    The plans are fcuking awful. The spot is in a prime place in London and you'd have thought that the 70's politburo inspired dump that has just been knocked down would be a lasting message that they have a chance to get it right this time, instead of looking like another shitty comprehensive school lookalike.

    There have been some shocking planning permissions granted in Central London ( Millbank Tower, QEII Conference Centre for two ) and Charlie has done a good job here. He is known for his passion for architecture and has as much right to make his point as some puffed up peer who only got to sit in the Lords for chugging Labour c0ck.
  13. Three Cheers for Bonnie Prince Charlie!

    I had the misfortune to listen to that whining cnut Rogers on Radio 4 whilst I was having breakfast. Who does he think he is? What a prize chod.

    What these people forget is that the buildings that they build are to stand for ages - they being NuLiarbour celebrity types are only interested in themselves and the moment. Prince Charles (who ordinarily I think is a complete knob) has at least got a sense of history and perspective in matters architectural.

    Surely, the Chelsea Barracks site has got to be the location of a large dormitory block into which we can pour any light fingered MP who feels he or she needs to stay in London overnight.
  14. Given that it was Rogers who designed that monstrous “inside out” building for Lloyds of London, he deserves all the criticism he gets.

    Prince Charles is to be applauded.
  15. One's opinions of lord Rogers are irrelevant, Charlie boy's intervention is an utter disgrace, he's over stepped the mark, abused his position and the only letter of objection he should have written was to the relevant planning department. It's called democracy and due process and Chaz has pissed all over it. Still what do you expect from the man who through accident of birth magically becomes the next head of state.