"Nick" wrote in message
...
"A H" wrote in message
...

...

What I loathe is people within the GLA boundary denying they are part of
London. Places like Bexley, Bromley etc only exist in their present form
because of London, not the neighbouring county of Kent.

If the people of Bexley want to be associated with and branded as part of
Kent, who are you to force them to share your London identity? I never
understand why Londoners always want to conquer yet more and more
territory
and smear their London branding ever more thinly over areas who actively
reject it.

What annoys me most about this "London" mindset is the staggeringly wrong
assumption that somehow London is the best place on the planet and
everyone
within the boundary should somehow consider themselves lucky to be here
(and
that everyone else outside the boundary must be dying to join, right?!).
Much of London is a polluted, grim urban toilet that festers with high
levels of anti-social behaviour, and is characteried by a total absence of
community.

I wager that Sevenoaks, Swanley, and Dartford are all as dependent on the
London economy as Bexley is. Do you loathe them being allowed to remain
in
Kent (even if that's what they want?)

Sevenoaks and Swanley are not part of the metropolitan built up area, they
are seperate from London. Bexley and Bromley are part of London.


All these people in outer London suburbs who like to deny they are part
of
the metropolis and think they live in rural Kent, Surrey, Essex, Herts
or
'Middlesex' should take their heads out of the sand.

It is entirely up to us, the local people, to choose what we want to be
described as. Nobody is pretending that suburban Bexleyheath is rural
Kent - that hasn't been said, and I'm sure you know that. But the
character
of somewhere like Bexeyheath and Sidcup I find *much* closer to the
character and ambience of say, the suburban housing developments on the
edge
of places like Tonbridge, Dartford, High Brooms, Maidstone. How can I
explain this: when I visit somewhere like Maidstone it feels very similar;
when I visit somewhere like Lewisham, New Cross, or Deptford, they seem so
entirely different. Superficially, Bexley is on the edge of the urban
sprawl that includes these latter places, but it is so entirely different
in
character.

You are clearly in denial and living in the past. You live in suburban
London, *not* in a town in Kent.


The only reason they
can still cling to outdated county identities was due to the Post
Office/Royal Mail insisting after 1965 (wrongly) that large chunks of
London
were actually in Kent, Surrey, Essex, Herts or 'Middlesex' when they
weren't.

And, of course, another reason being we have a right to label our area as
Kent if we wish. You'll just have to understand that everyone doesn't
want
to be part of your area or share your identity.

Even this requirement has been dropped by Royal Mail, as always it
will takes generations to catch up...

Postal counties still exist and are maintained, they just aren't one of
the
mandatory address fields. However, as far as I am aware, the RM *still*
recommend the use of the postal county for places such as "Rainham, Essex"
and "Rainham, Kent" to avoid any potential confusion.

I understand why some people like London and understand why others like
Kent. Each to their own. If you want to be part of London and enjoy what
it has to offer then that's just fine with me, but don't deny my
neighbours'
and my right to choose our county affiliation.

Nick

If you feel so strongly anti-London (which is what clearly comes across)
then why are you still living in suburban London, within the Greater London
boundary (GLA area)? Why have you not moved out to your beloved Kent so that
you can really say you live there - not pretend your Bexley, outer London
house is in Kent when it is not?

You're fighting a losing battle. Your refusal to face up to reality i.e.
that cities expand and surrounding hamlets, villages and towns get swallowed
up and become part of the city which fuelled their suburban growth in the
first place, is just sad. Get over it, you live in the London Borough of
Bexley, not a small town in Kent (Kent County Council area).

Andy

"Aidan Stanger" wrote in message
...
1. If you live in Bexley, how much of your council tax goes to Kent
County
Council?

None now, but AIUI some did before the GLA was created, as KCC were
responsible for some of the roads.

2. The Royal Mail dropped the requirement for county names in addresses
many
years ago.
Type your postcode into their address finder.

A significant proportion of mail is still hand sorted, and that is still
done by county.


Are you sure ?

The last time I was in a medium-sized sorting office, all manual sorting was
based on the PostTown and the first half of the Postcode only.

That, plus the fact that counties are now not part of the recommended postal
address, makes me doubt your statement.


--
Richard

"Aidan Stanger" wrote in message
...
Nick wrote:
"Ian Jelf" wrote...
writes
I know "Londoners" find this hard to believe, but many of us don't
wanty
to be part of your high-density overpopulated sprawling urban gloom.

But people there are probably happy with their co-ordinated public
transport and - when the time comes - Freedom Passes?

Whenever I have this debate about Bexley part of Greater London or not,
the
biggest noise always seems to be made about the Freedom pass!

Probably because the holders have got the most to lose, and will
fiercely resist any attempt to take it away.

Arguably, I think the freedom pass is overkill anyway; I would support
free
use of local buses to moderately distant locations, trains to central
London, and maybe tube travel in Z1 off-peak. In Bexley, I would guess
that
95% of Freedom pass owners use the train and tube extremely rarely, and
probably less than 50% use the buses regularly.

Do you know any Freedom pass owners? Your guess seems wildly low!

Yes, I know lots of Freedom pass owners, many of whom drive and never use
it; of the rest, most just use the local buses (local as in
Bexley/Bromley/Dartford/Woolwich).

What are the actual figures? My guess is low, but I suspect it might be of
the right order.

I don't believe pensioners
are at all bothered that they can travel to Uxbridge for free.

Maybe not Uxbridge, but certainly Kingston and Heathrow, despite the
truncation of the 726 at Bromley.

I don't think pensioners in Bexley have much interest or inclination to
travel to either of those places ;-)

How many
Freedom pass users regularly travel to Dartford and Bluewater and
contribute
to "out-of-region" retail spend I wonder :-)

Unlike normal bus passes, Freedom passes are not valid as far as
Bluewater. However, they are valid to Dartford and Swanley on the train
as well as on the bus. Hundreds use Freedom passes to get to Dartford
and Swanley markets, but that's hardly "out of region".

Ah, that's interesting and I didn't know that - not valid beyond Dartford
for Bluewater by bus? I am quite surprised at that. I am sure pensioners
around here would love to stay on the 96 to Bluewater and not be chucked off
at Dartford. So pensioners in Bexley can travel to Uxbridge for free, but
have to pay to go a few miles to Bluewater, hmm!

I agree with you that's it hardly out of region, but I was (pehaps too)
subltely hinting at how the daft the London/South East government regional
division is. Retail spend in Dartford and Swanley harms the spend figures
for "London" and boosts those for the "SouthEast" region. For similar
reasons it appears, Bexley (the council) seem absolutely terrfied of
promoting the proximity of Bluewater as a major benefit of living in Bexley,
partly because it means diverting spend outside the borough (OK, and they
want to promote their own shopping centres too, eg Bexleyheath, I agree with
that as well). However, living a few minutes from the biggest shopping
centre in Europe is a big benefit IMO.

...

"A H" wrote in message
...
"Nick" wrote in message
...
"A H" wrote in message
...

...

What I loathe is people within the GLA boundary denying they are part
of
London. Places like Bexley, Bromley etc only exist in their present
form
because of London, not the neighbouring county of Kent.

If the people of Bexley want to be associated with and branded as part of
Kent, who are you to force them to share your London identity? I never
understand why Londoners always want to conquer yet more and more
territory
and smear their London branding ever more thinly over areas who actively
reject it.

What annoys me most about this "London" mindset is the staggeringly wrong
assumption that somehow London is the best place on the planet and
everyone
within the boundary should somehow consider themselves lucky to be here
(and
that everyone else outside the boundary must be dying to join, right?!).
Much of London is a polluted, grim urban toilet that festers with high
levels of anti-social behaviour, and is characteried by a total absence
of
community.

I wager that Sevenoaks, Swanley, and Dartford are all as dependent on the
London economy as Bexley is. Do you loathe them being allowed to remain
in
Kent (even if that's what they want?)

Sevenoaks and Swanley are not part of the metropolitan built up area, they
are seperate from London. Bexley and Bromley are part of London.

So I take it you're saying Dartford is in London now?

Bexley and Bromley *adjoin* London, that doesn't make them part of London.
If I was living in a semi-detached house, I would be adjoining my neighbour
but that doesn't mean I am part of their household. My point is that
proximity doesn't mean a great deal; if you understood the character of
Bexley you might begin to appreciate what I mean.

Anyway, there is just a mile or so of open space between Swanley and the
housing of Bexley and Bromley. It is clearly a close neigbour and much more
accesible by car than most areas to the west. Swanley, I would say, is very
much part of my local area, whereas most parts of SE London aren't.

Sevenoaks is more seperated and indeed outside the M25, but how long will
that last for...

All these people in outer London suburbs who like to deny they are part
of
the metropolis and think they live in rural Kent, Surrey, Essex, Herts
or
'Middlesex' should take their heads out of the sand.

It is entirely up to us, the local people, to choose what we want to be
described as. Nobody is pretending that suburban Bexleyheath is rural
Kent - that hasn't been said, and I'm sure you know that. But the
character
of somewhere like Bexeyheath and Sidcup I find *much* closer to the
character and ambience of say, the suburban housing developments on the
edge
of places like Tonbridge, Dartford, High Brooms, Maidstone. How can I
explain this: when I visit somewhere like Maidstone it feels very
similar;
when I visit somewhere like Lewisham, New Cross, or Deptford, they seem
so
entirely different. Superficially, Bexley is on the edge of the urban
sprawl that includes these latter places, but it is so entirely different
in
character.

You are clearly in denial and living in the past. You live in suburban
London, *not* in a town in Kent.

Since when were these terms mutually exclusive? Bexleyheath is a town in
its own right, own retail centre, a moderatel degree of provision of local
employment. I would say it's in "metropolitan Kent" - the part of Kent that
has evolved and devloped more rapidly than other Kent areas to serve the
*employment* needs of central London. But so what?

Bexleyheath is a town in Kent that is suburban in nature and which adjoins
London. And if that's what those of who live here want it to be regarded
as, I fear you will just have to come to terms with it, rather than
insulting us.

The only reason they
can still cling to outdated county identities was due to the Post
Office/Royal Mail insisting after 1965 (wrongly) that large chunks of
London
were actually in Kent, Surrey, Essex, Herts or 'Middlesex' when they
weren't.

And, of course, another reason being we have a right to label our area as
Kent if we wish. You'll just have to understand that everyone doesn't
want
to be part of your area or share your identity.

Even this requirement has been dropped by Royal Mail, as always it
will takes generations to catch up...

Postal counties still exist and are maintained, they just aren't one of
the
mandatory address fields. However, as far as I am aware, the RM *still*
recommend the use of the postal county for places such as "Rainham,
Essex"
and "Rainham, Kent" to avoid any potential confusion.

I understand why some people like London and understand why others like
Kent. Each to their own. If you want to be part of London and enjoy
what
it has to offer then that's just fine with me, but don't deny my
neighbours'
and my right to choose our county affiliation.

Nick

If you feel so strongly anti-London (which is what clearly comes across)
then why are you still living in suburban London, within the Greater
London
boundary (GLA area)? Why have you not moved out to your beloved Kent so
that
you can really say you live there - not pretend your Bexley, outer London
house is in Kent when it is not?

You mean, why don't I just give in?

You don't seem to appreciate that the vast majority of people in Bexley
*want* to be described as living in Kent and to feel an affinity with the
county. And that is entirely a matter of us; you have no business asserting
that our hearts are minds lie with London when they don't.

I really feel no need to move. I live in Old Bexley which has nice
non-London friendly feel to it, the neighbours and local community and it's
a million miles away (in terms of atmosphere) from central London.

You're fighting a losing battle. Your refusal to face up to reality i.e.
that cities expand and surrounding hamlets, villages and towns get
swallowed
up and become part of the city which fuelled their suburban growth in the
first place, is just sad. Get over it, you live in the London Borough of
Bexley, not a small town in Kent (Kent County Council area).

I never said I lived in small town. I live in "metropolitan Kent" and I am
sure most of my neighbours would agree with that.

I'm sorry you find it sad that I care about where I live and its identity
and branding, but that's just the kind of cynicism I've come to expect from
Londoners ;-)

Nick

Peter Beale wrote:
In article , (Dave Arquati) wrote:


I think this pedantic argument has been done to death on this
newsgroup.

I did acknowledge that I was being pedantic.

The point was that your pedantry was incorrect.

If you're going to split hairs over the type of stock,
first recognise the difference between "tube" and "Tube". The former
may be taken to mean just trains using the bored deep tube lines (if
you wish to be so pedantic about it). The latter refers to the London
Underground system.

A distinction which escapes me - perhaps I am not so pedantic after all!

London Underground = "Tube" = deep bored + subsurface lines
Deep bored lines = "tube" lines.

Line which used to serve Watford Junction = Bakerloo = a tube line.
Line which serves Watford station, operated by LU = a Tube line.

See www.thetube.com.

Personally, I don't care if someone uses "tube" (capitalised or
otherwise) to describe any LU-operated line. It's widely accepted usage.
However, I make an effort to distinguish "Tube" and "tube" because I
know there are pedants about...

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

In message , Nick
writes
Yes, I know lots of Freedom pass owners, many of whom drive and never use
it; of the rest, most just use the local buses (local as in
Bexley/Bromley/Dartford/Woolwich).

I would be very interested to see the newspaper reaction if it was
announced tomorrow that Freedom passes were to be replaced by Bexley +
Bluewater only passes for holders living in Bexley.......

:-))

Kingston and Heathrow
I don't think pensioners in Bexley have much interest or inclination to
travel to either of those places ;-)
Not even Heathrow?


Ah, that's interesting and I didn't know that - not valid beyond Dartford
for Bluewater by bus? I am quite surprised at that. I am sure pensioners
around here would love to stay on the 96 to Bluewater and not be chucked off
at Dartford.
I know you're only using a figure of speech but they're not in any sense
"chucked off"; they merely have to pay a fare from the boundary!

So pensioners in Bexley can travel to Uxbridge for free, but
have to pay to go a few miles to Bluewater, hmm!
Boundaries have to be *somewhere* and they will always result in winners
and losers.
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

Nick wrote:
(a great deal of snip)
I have missed out a whole section on one of the most important aspects
though - planning and nightmare documents like the London Plan that read
like a death sentence for the suburbs. Ken's phrases like "London has to
intensify and increase housing densities within its own boundaries" I think
is extremely dangerous talk indeed, given that the boundary is fairly
arbitrary and has not been reviewed for some time AND given the fact that
there' so much more space outside GL to develop rather than the tiny pockets
of open space we have left within! But it's late so that'll have to wait
for another time...

That doesn't really mean building on open spaces; it means brownfield
high-density development and intensification of existing "brown" areas,
rather than building on "green" areas.

The premise is that the suburbs are unsustainable if/when oil prices
skyrocket (and with regard to environmental issues), as low-density
development depends a lot on the use of the car, whereas high-density
areas can be well-served by public transport, or since facilities will
be nearer to homes, simply by walking.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

"Ian Jelf" wrote in message
...
In message , Nick
writes
Yes, I know lots of Freedom pass owners, many of whom drive and never use
it; of the rest, most just use the local buses (local as in
Bexley/Bromley/Dartford/Woolwich).

I would be very interested to see the newspaper reaction if it was
announced tomorrow that Freedom passes were to be replaced by Bexley +
Bluewater only passes for holders living in Bexley.......

:-))

Kingston and Heathrow
I don't think pensioners in Bexley have much interest or inclination to
travel to either of those places ;-)
Not even Heathrow?


Ah, that's interesting and I didn't know that - not valid beyond Dartford
for Bluewater by bus? I am quite surprised at that. I am sure pensioners
around here would love to stay on the 96 to Bluewater and not be chucked
off
at Dartford.
I know you're only using a figure of speech but they're not in any sense
"chucked off"; they merely have to pay a fare from the boundary!

This is one of those strange things as mentioned a London freedom pass
holder may only travel as far as Dartford, yet
a KCC half fare permit holder may travel at half fare all the way to
Woolwich.

In message , Axlegrease
writes

My spouse and I both lived further out in Essex "proper" before we
married. The need to find somewhere to live for us and our child,
within reasonable commuting distance of our jobs which were then in the
Square Mile, brought us more or less accidentally to this borough. Just
because we stepped over an invisible line, it didn't mean we stopped
being Essex people.

So, by your theory, perhaps I should now declare the Lancashire People's
Republic of Newham as I now live there?

You 'chose' to live in a London Borough.... live with it.

Oh, I'm now a Londoner (lives there, pays council tax etc. etc.) who
just happens to originate from Lancashire.
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)

In message , Colin
writes

This is one of those strange things as mentioned a London freedom pass
holder may only travel as far as Dartford, yet a KCC half fare permit
holder may travel at half fare all the way to Woolwich.

That's not uncommon with surrounding shire counties of several
Metropolitan areas.

For example, Centro's (very generous) scheme in the West Midlands cuts
off very firmly at the West Midlands boundary. However, passes for
Staffordshire, Worcestershire and Warwickshire allow (much less
generous) travel into the West Midlands county, so that people from -
say_ Warwick can go all the way to Coventry or Cannock all the way in
to Walsall.

They might even allow travel all the way into Birmingham, I'm not
certain.
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk