Of all the horrors of the early years of tendering in London, something
which really bugged me (out of all proportion if I'm honest!) was the taking
away of our red buses. This was particularly true where I lived at the time
as even the route London Buses retained were transformed into the horrendous
Bexlybus operation. It really felt like they were taking some of our London
heritage away, which is all the more sensitive when the Royal Mail tells
everybody you live in Kent.

So, I was delighted when Ken reversed the livery requirement and was
wondering...

1) What percentage of routes are now red liveried?
2) How long until they are all red? If an existing non-red operator, such as
Metrobus on the 161, has modern low-floor buses and retains the route with
existing vehicles, do they have to repaint or is it only on new bus orders?

Thanks

Tony Wilson wrote:
Of all the horrors of the early years of tendering in London,
something which really bugged me (out of all proportion if I'm
honest!) was the taking away of our red buses. This was particularly
true where I lived at the time as even the route London Buses
retained were transformed into the horrendous Bexlybus operation. It
really felt like they were taking some of our London heritage away,
which is all the more sensitive when the Royal Mail tells everybody
you live in Kent.


Are you suggesting the Royal Mail is wrong? As far as I'm aware Bexley has
always been in Kent, it's only the grasping of London suburbia that has
caused Bexley to become attached to the metropolis.

"Brimstone" wrote in message
...

Are you suggesting the Royal Mail is wrong? As far as I'm aware Bexley has
always been in Kent, it's only the grasping of London suburbia that has
caused Bexley to become attached to the metropolis.


It is the same all around London.

Bromley, Croydon, Mitcham, Sutton and Kingston coming to immediate mind as
examples in South London.

"Brimstone" wrote in message
...
Tony Wilson wrote:
Of all the horrors of the early years of tendering in London,
something which really bugged me (out of all proportion if I'm
honest!) was the taking away of our red buses. This was particularly
true where I lived at the time as even the route London Buses
retained were transformed into the horrendous Bexlybus operation. It
really felt like they were taking some of our London heritage away,
which is all the more sensitive when the Royal Mail tells everybody
you live in Kent.


Are you suggesting the Royal Mail is wrong? As far as I'm aware Bexley has
always been in Kent, it's only the grasping of London suburbia that has
caused Bexley to become attached to the metropolis.


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

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

Peter.

"Peter Goodland" wrote in message
...
"Brimstone" wrote in message
...
Tony Wilson wrote:
Of all the horrors of the early years of tendering in London,
something which really bugged me (out of all proportion if I'm
honest!) was the taking away of our red buses. This was particularly
true where I lived at the time as even the route London Buses
retained were transformed into the horrendous Bexlybus operation. It
really felt like they were taking some of our London heritage away,
which is all the more sensitive when the Royal Mail tells everybody
you live in Kent.


Are you suggesting the Royal Mail is wrong? As far as I'm aware Bexley
has always been in Kent, it's only the grasping of London suburbia that
has caused Bexley to become attached to the metropolis.


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

As much as those who live in Medway pay. So? Kent the "entity" is more
than just the administrative KCC area.

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

And most post still uses the county field.

Nick

"Tony Wilson" a@a wrote in message
...
Of all the horrors of the early years of tendering in London, something
which really bugged me (out of all proportion if I'm honest!) was the
taking
away of our red buses. This was particularly true where I lived at the
time
as even the route London Buses retained were transformed into the
horrendous
Bexlybus operation. It really felt like they were taking some of our
London
heritage away, which is all the more sensitive when the Royal Mail tells
everybody you live in Kent.

So, I was delighted when Ken reversed the livery requirement and was
wondering...

1) What percentage of routes are now red liveried?
2) How long until they are all red? If an existing non-red operator, such
as
Metrobus on the 161, has modern low-floor buses and retains the route with
existing vehicles, do they have to repaint or is it only on new bus
orders?

London heritage??? We have been part of Kent for generations, and only
sucked into the Greater London experiment so the Tories could take control
of London government (well, mostly). I am sure the overwhelming majority of
residents in Bexley describe, and want to describe themselves as living in
Kent (me included). Maybe those of us in metropolitan Kent will one day
escape from the clutches of central London and determine our own affairs
without inteference.

I loathe Bexley being described as "south London", it really is NOT. We are
part of the Greater London administrative area, that's all, for all other
purposes we are people of Kent. 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.

Nick

"Henry" wrote in message
...
"Brimstone" wrote in message
...

Are you suggesting the Royal Mail is wrong? As far as I'm aware Bexley
has
always been in Kent, it's only the grasping of London suburbia that has
caused Bexley to become attached to the metropolis.


It is the same all around London.

Bromley, Croydon, Mitcham, Sutton and Kingston coming to immediate mind as
examples in South London.

What about Dartford, Watford? It is a pity people (ie the media, mostly)
cannot differentiate between administrative and strategic areas without
using every opportunity to brand things as "London" and calling residents
"Londoners". It is somewhat ironic that the London branding lobby that try
so hard to persuade Bexley that it's in south London actually harm the
expansion of the Greater London administrative are by doing so.

A significant area around London can be sensibly co-ordinated from London,
but that does't mean for a moment that it then automatically becomes London
or those areas lose their cherished identity.

Nick
Bexley, Kent

I think this is one of those debates that's often characterized as an
either/or thing, when it really needn't be.

I grew up in Romford, another town that's been swallowed by greater
London. As anyone who's ever been to Romford will know, it's not
exactly devoid of Essex identity, and I suspect that most residents
would claim they live in Essex. (This includes the local MP who for no
reason other than a hatred of Ken Livingstone, as far as I can tell,
wants the London Borough of Havering to cede from the GLA).

However, it also shares features elements of cultural identity with
East London generally in a way that, say, Basildon doesn't. Moreover,
in a practical sense, thigs like transport are better planned from City
Hall than from Chelmsford, as more people will want to travel around
the conurbation than out into Essex.

I don't see any contradiction there. Romford is a suburb of London in
Essex, in the same way that Bexley is a suburb of London in Kent, and
Wood Green is a suburb of London in Middlesex.

Jonn

"Nick" wrote in message
...

"Henry" wrote in message
...
"Brimstone" wrote in message
...

Are you suggesting the Royal Mail is wrong? As far as I'm aware Bexley
has
always been in Kent, it's only the grasping of London suburbia that has
caused Bexley to become attached to the metropolis.


It is the same all around London.

Bromley, Croydon, Mitcham, Sutton and Kingston coming to immediate mind
as
examples in South London.

What about Dartford, Watford?

What indeed? I did say these were examples - there's probably a couple of
dozen in all.

cheers

Henry (Man of Kent)

"Nick" wrote in message
...

"Tony Wilson" a@a wrote in message
...
snip

London heritage??? We have been part of Kent for generations, and only
sucked into the Greater London experiment so the Tories could take control
of London government (well, mostly). I am sure the overwhelming majority
of
residents in Bexley describe, and want to describe themselves as living in
Kent (me included). Maybe those of us in metropolitan Kent will one day
escape from the clutches of central London and determine our own affairs
without inteference.

I loathe Bexley being described as "south London", it really is NOT. We
are
part of the Greater London administrative area, that's all, for all other
purposes we are people of Kent. 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.

Nick


I live in the Borough of Lewisham but the boundary with Bromley is no more
than 200 yds away and there will be, of course, analagous places close to
Bexley but clearly in London.

If I cross the boundary into Bromley I do not see any material difference,
not immediately and not for many miles. In broad terms the centre of
Bromley and the center of Lewisham are very similar (and very similar to
many other 'town' centres, but that is a different topic).

London used to be a tiny area on the north bank of Thames and has gradually
grown. It seems to me that where there is a continuous built up area there
is one city (or Metropolitan Area if you want). By that standard, Bexley,
Bromley, Croydon etc are already part London and have been for many years.

I loathe Bexley being described as "south London", it really is NOT. We
are
part of the Greater London administrative area, that's all, for all other
purposes we are people of Kent.

Greater London & Kent *are* administrative areas.

--
regards

Stephen