You don't know me and I don't know you" . Completely true, Shems.
Which hasn't stopped you making more personal remarks: about my "delusion and arrogance"; and that "I peddle tosh". Also claiming to know better than I do, my supposedly "hidden agenda".
I assume that simply means we disagree. It happens.
When you've finished the personal insults, would you care to answer my serious question ? ( on page 8 )
No John, not until you state whether you, like quite a few people on this thread... work for the council, are an elected member of said council, are a serial council botherer, or just hate them because no one emptied your bins this morning, if it's no to all of the above, then maybe we can enter into some honest discourse. I'm sorry if you see my previous posts as 'personal insults', I just don't like hypocrisy...
I am none of the above. Go ahead.
A reminder of our house rules especially 2(b) "Play the ball, not the man"
Ah, so you're a "wind-up merchant"? I was beginning to wonder.
Expect the best; be prepared for the worst.
Politics is about choices. Mainly, choices about how to spend public money. Many residents are comparing the spending of their taxes on something like this at a time of significant cuts and can think of better ways to spend it.
Sometimes residents' income bracket makes them immune to considerations of careful spending. However, some ordinary people I speak to say simply, it's a waste of money.
Clives' motivation in this debate is highly suspect
No, I'm a Member of the Opposition that has a duty to critique, scrutinise and hold to account.
the pair of you can't answer honestly
Shem, I think you're disregarding the wide interest and reporting of the spending of that much public money on the identity rebranding: including The Independent; The London Evening Standard, local radio and several local papers.
The questioning of this logo is by more than just a couple of curmudgeons that you imply (trying to minimise and belittle those who dare to criticise, is a tactic sadly often used by Haringey).
The description of the logo as childish seems to be fairly consistent:
Below is a photo taken today by an ordinary resident of the sign outside the Muswell Hill branch of Giraffe.
Giraffe is a children's restaurant and the logo is obviously designed to appeal to children. Would you accept that there's a similarity in style, if not approach?
So you are associating the logo with children Clive? I actually think it is rather adult and is just following fashion. It's actually your (shit)storm in a teacup that's becoming childish.
One thing I would say. I find the move away from Heraldry a pity. All boroughs are actually constituents of London. But hardly any logos actually reflect that.
Another comparison from me to bore you. All Berlin boroughs have similar 'shields' (logos) which with addition of the bear, show their connection to the city. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_Wappen_in_Berlin#Wappen_der... Perhaps the way forward is to have a standardised London logo together with the borough's name, which might bring some kind of feeling of belonging together - One City?