Before 'Surreyans' take up arms I know Croydon is in surrey but she's also a London borough.
heard that in 1997 croydon failed because she had no cathedral. Informed sources tell me she now has one. Do you think london docklands should become london's fourth City?
2006-09-12 12:58:20 · 7 answers · asked by olayinka o 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
surely alonsofan you cannot be serious, blow up all those sky csrappers?
2006-09-12 13:39:33 · update #1
Does London need cities within a city. I think not. London is a fantastic, viberant city that is also the Capital of England, having cities within the city of London is just stupid and would result in even more tax needing to be paid by those who live there.
2006-09-13 08:45:43 · answer #1 · answered by thebigtombs 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
London Forget about Croydon. It should be borough of croydon. And that is giving it some status!
2006-09-12 14:47:53 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think the best thing they could do to Croydon in 2007 is blow the place up... chav heavan!
Edit: Even the Sky Scrapers :p Seriously though, the area needs to go under some drastic regeneration - it's not really close to deserving the status of being a city. It has quite enough problems as it is!!
2006-09-12 13:20:34 · answer #3 · answered by Alonsofan 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Croydon, the arm pit of London - fact.
2006-09-13 00:05:00 · answer #4 · answered by Andrew J 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Any surprise that Lunar House - home of the immigration dept - is in as ghastly a place as Croydon?
2006-09-13 00:26:34 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
no its a dump should be kingston as its a royal borough
2006-09-12 12:59:55 · answer #6 · answered by SammyD 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Should it bollocks. leeds should be the capital not london. its slap bang in the middle of the uk. and it rules!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2006-09-12 13:49:17 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋