On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 09:14:43 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message
-sept
ember.org, at 08:42:10 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016, Recliner
remarked:
The Royal Mail dropped county names from addresses years ago.

Yes, but too many web forms still make it a mandatory field, probably
because they were originally designed to collect US addresses.

Not literally so, because US addresses don't include the county. In
general they are shorter than UK addresses, only having Street, Town,
State (universally abbreviated) and Zipcode.

For example, Microsoft is: One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA, 98052-7329.
No mention at all of King County.

One would have expected Nigel to have known that.

Is there any postal authority that still uses counties, or their
functional equivalent?

In message , at 10:57:07 on
Fri, 22 Jan 2016, Optimist remarked:
ps We do still have some counties in our addresses; places in
Peterborough for example, which is a County. Although in any event
Peterborough is a "Post Town".

The post town should be abolished, as we have the post code. It often misleads strangers who not
unreasonably follow signposts to it but can find themselves miles away from their intended
destination.

If the place isn't in the immediate vicinity of the Post Town, then it
should have another town/village too. So for example the Tesco near the
under construction Cambridge North Station is "Milton, Cambridge", not
merely "Cambridge". And the one next to Ely Station is simply "Ely".

(+ postcodes, obviously; Ely is CB7)
--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 10:11:54 +0000, Martin Coffee
wrote:

On 22/01/16 08:42, Recliner wrote:
Optimist wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 01:12:39 -0000, "Michael R N Dolbear" wrote:


"Recliner" wrote

happening with Greater London, perhaps because so much of so many
historic counties came together that no group dominated.

The strange anomaly is Middlesex, which has been entirely absorbed into
Greater London, but whose name persists in postal addresses in some
boroughs, but not others.

"entirely absorbed"

Not so, thus Surrey got Sunbury, Shepperton, Ashford and Staines;
Hertfordshire got Potters Bar and in further changes Berkshire got Poyle.

For extra credit, point out the bit of Surrey that was north of the Thames
before these changes.

The Royal Mail dropped county names from addresses years ago.

Yes, but too many web forms still make it a mandatory field, probably
because they were originally designed to collect US addresses.

Which is a real problem here in south Wales because the current counties
are often missing from the data bases and we are often forced to use the
previous ones from drop downs!

Which is a disgrace,

My address is also not in the post code data base which can cause
problems. In my case my land line had to be installed in an
"outbuilding" at my postcode!

There building within which we live was built four years back. It is
only now being distributed in the PAF. For a while I had problems
with websites saying my postcode is invalid, and delivery drivers
whose satnavs would not accept it.

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 00:52:52 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Thursday, 21 January 2016 17:25:06 UTC+1, Basil Jet wrote:

Not really, but there are grudges between counties, and if you
arbitrarily reassign part of Lancashire to be part of Yorkshire the
people in that area are likely to find themselves host to the county
incinerator and such. Herefordshire definitely felt that they were a
conquered people in Hereford & Worcestershire. I'm not aware of this
happening with Greater London, perhaps because so much of so many
historic counties came together that no group dominated.

This is the clever aspect of the creation of "ceremonial counties". In general the sorts of grudges and sense of identity issues surrounding counties are not particularly associated with the actual business of administering local government. By creating ceremonial counties, people can still be in whichever county but the actual business of running things can be altered to suit real need.

Not sure whay we cannot have a ceremonial Middlesex.

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 15:01:06 +0000, Basil Jet
wrote:


I am amazed that government bodies are basically saying to our face
"Some people have made themselves a bit unwelcome in Cologne and other
parts of Germany so they are all going to invade Britain instead" and
no-one bats an eyelid because we all just coo-coo over the new trainset.

Folks are waking up, on this issue at least. The next EU referendum
may prove interesting.

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 10:22:35 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 03:58:31
on Fri, 22 Jan 2016, remarked:
It's been said several times that TSGN is probably "too big to be
manageable" - by Govia anyway. Slimming it down by shifting some of
the services to an alternative operator (and alternative operator)
might help.

Also, there are probably some compromises involved when operating
both short and middle distance routes simultaneously, so again
splitting into [any] two operations could have advantages.

One route NOT included in yesterday's announced scheme is Thameslink.

The Evening Standard did.

"The first route to come under the next Mayor's control will be
Southeastern in 2018, followed by Southern, Thameslink and Great
Northern services in 2021."

Perhaps just the Sutton loop TL?

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 02:09:50 +0000, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2016\01\22 02:00, wrote:
In article , (Basil Jet)
wrote:

Middlesex still exists, it just doesn't have a council. It existed
for hundreds of years before it had a council.

We are discussing administrative areas. There is none for Middlesex. When it
was a county its HQ was in London anyway. It was wiped out by the growth of
London. It's gone. It is an ex-county as far as administration of services
for people as opposed to backward-looking sentimentality is concerned.

It's not backward or sentimental. It's a place. Same as Friern Barnet is
a place even though its former Town Hall is a block of flats now. Same
as "The West End" has been a place for centuries despite never appearing
on any map.

Time for an historic review: From the time of Edward I, the City of
London was outwith any county, it is a county in its own right if you
will.

The City was bordered to the south by the Thames and on the other
three sides by Middlesex, the territory of the Middle Saxons.

By the late 19th century, southeast Middlesex was largely urbanized,
like northeast Surrey, and northwest Kent. The northwest of
Middlesex, i.e. the Ruislip's, Uxbridge, et al, were still very rural.
Southeast Middlesex included Westminster.

In 1855 the Metropolitan Board of Works was imposed on the urbanized
parts of Middlesex, Surrey, and Kent adjacent to the City. This was
an unelected, unpopular body that descended into corruption.

So, in 1889, without the consent of the governed, half of Middlese,x
and parts of neighboring Surrey, and Kent were annexed into the London
County Council Area. The London County Council was unique in being
granted powers not given to other counties. Why these powers could
not have been granted the Middlesex, Surrey, and Kent is a mystery.

So, England's historic core was being changed. The one good thing
about the LCC years was that its Boroughs were sensibly sized. One
could certainly relate to, say, The Borough of St Marylebone.

Then in 1965 came the ultimate land grab. Newly created Greater
London stretched from Chessington to Enfield. Middlesex ceased to
exist as a county authority. Most of remaining Middlesex became
Greater London, with small enclaves transferring to Surrey.

Are folks better off with these expensive monolithic structures? Let's
attribute good motives to the Whitehall instigators of this mishigas.
But, people are losing touch with their history, and who they really
are. This is not healthy.

On 22/01/2016 12:30, aurora wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 02:09:50 +0000, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2016\01\22 02:00, wrote:
In article , (Basil Jet)
wrote:

Middlesex still exists, it just doesn't have a council. It existed
for hundreds of years before it had a council.

We are discussing administrative areas. There is none for Middlesex. When it
was a county its HQ was in London anyway. It was wiped out by the growth of
London. It's gone. It is an ex-county as far as administration of services
for people as opposed to backward-looking sentimentality is concerned.

It's not backward or sentimental. It's a place. Same as Friern Barnet is
a place even though its former Town Hall is a block of flats now. Same
as "The West End" has been a place for centuries despite never appearing
on any map.

Time for an historic review: From the time of Edward I, the City of
London was outwith any county, it is a county in its own right if you
will.

The City was bordered to the south by the Thames and on the other
three sides by Middlesex, the territory of the Middle Saxons.

By the late 19th century, southeast Middlesex was largely urbanized,
like northeast Surrey, and northwest Kent. The northwest of
Middlesex, i.e. the Ruislip's, Uxbridge, et al, were still very rural.
Southeast Middlesex included Westminster.

In 1855 the Metropolitan Board of Works was imposed on the urbanized
parts of Middlesex, Surrey, and Kent adjacent to the City. This was
an unelected, unpopular body that descended into corruption.

So, in 1889, without the consent of the governed, half of Middlese,x
and parts of neighboring Surrey, and Kent were annexed into the London
County Council Area. The London County Council was unique in being
granted powers not given to other counties. Why these powers could
not have been granted the Middlesex, Surrey, and Kent is a mystery.

So, England's historic core was being changed. The one good thing
about the LCC years was that its Boroughs were sensibly sized. One
could certainly relate to, say, The Borough of St Marylebone.

Then in 1965 came the ultimate land grab. Newly created Greater
London stretched from Chessington to Enfield. Middlesex ceased to
exist as a county authority. Most of remaining Middlesex became
Greater London, with small enclaves transferring to Surrey.

Are folks better off with these expensive monolithic structures? Let's
attribute good motives to the Whitehall instigators of this mishigas.
But, people are losing touch with their history, and who they really
are. This is not healthy.



Not as unhealthy as people inventing totally fictitious pasts for
themselves based on a medieval piece of fiction.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message , at 12:14:33 on
Fri, 22 Jan 2016, Recliner remarked:
One route NOT included in yesterday's announced scheme is Thameslink.

The Evening Standard did.

"The first route to come under the next Mayor's control will be
Southeastern in 2018, followed by Southern, Thameslink and Great
Northern services in 2021."

Perhaps just the Sutton loop TL?

And all the way to St Albans?
--
Roland Perry

On 2016\01\22 12:30, aurora wrote:

Then in 1965 came the ultimate land grab. Newly created Greater
London stretched from Chessington to Enfield. Middlesex ceased to
exist as a county authority. Most of remaining Middlesex became
Greater London, with small enclaves transferring to Surrey.

Or Herts.

Incidentally, the county boundary between Potters Bar and Barnet used to
have Hertfordshire on the south side and now the same county boundary
has Hertfordshire on the north side. Could this be a unique occurrence
in the world? I wonder if the "Welcome to Hertfordshire" signs were just
turned around on the same pole.