"Epetruk" wrote in message
...
Nick wrote:

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.

So... which is more reliable in determining where a place is located - a
postcode county system which isn't even required to be used by the Royal
Mail, or the county that administers the borough?

I mean, nobody seriously argues that Bordeaux is in the UK.

Postal counties are pretty well established, based largely on administrative
counties of some decades past. People, not surprisingly, quote where they
live as where they are addressed, hence people in Bexley say they live in
Kent as that's what they usually quote as their address.

Describing locations by administrative areas, particularly as they seem to
change so relatively frequently in the UK, makes no sense to me, though this
seems increasingly common.

Plus, I don't understand why the "Greater" is being lost from "Greater
London". Greater London, to me, means real London plus lots of fringe areas
that aren't really "London" but close enough to be administered by it.
However, organisations such as BBC London appear to ban the phrase unless
it's in a name of an actual body, eg the GLA.

Nick
Bexley, Kent

"Nick" wrote in message
...

However, organisations such as BBC London appear to ban the phrase unless
it's in a name of an actual body, eg the GLA.


What BBC London do geographically is pretty meaningless.

They cannot even manage to match their own news coverage area to the TV
transmitters they use. There are a number of areas who cannot receive any
other BBC local TV news service, but whose local news is transmitted by
another region. They can only get a BBC local news service if they choose
to have satellite.

Postal counties are pretty well established, based largely on
administrative
counties of some decades past. People, not surprisingly, quote where they
live as where they are addressed, hence people in Bexley say they live in
Kent as that's what they usually quote as their address.

Indeed, and there are other variations. Edmonton has had a London postcode
since the mid-1800s, about thirty years before it came under the control of
Middlesex County Council, and about century before it was ever controlled
by any London administrative body. Some other parts of the London Borough
Of Enfield still have Middlesex in the postal address despite having a
similar history.

Post is really based on Post Towns and the Post Code. The county you see on
your postal address may well be that of the post town rather than your own
town. Your postal address can include a county that your town has never
been part of geographically or administratively.

Describing locations by administrative areas, particularly as they seem to
change so relatively frequently in the UK, makes no sense to me, though
this
seems increasingly common.

Absolutely, and it is not helped by the Ordnance Survey using administrative
boundaries on their maps.

http://www.abcounties.co.uk/ gives a good background to all this sort of
thing.

Plus, I don't understand why the "Greater" is being lost from "Greater
London". Greater London, to me, means real London plus lots of fringe
areas
that aren't really "London" but close enough to be administered by it.
However, organisations such as BBC London appear to ban the phrase unless
it's in a name of an actual body, eg the GLA.

When we had the GLC the term 'Greater London' did seem to be used a lot
more, though that has never been part of any postal addresses. Now we have
Greater London Authority the term is just as well defined, but we only
really hear mention of the Mayor Of London and the London Assembly that
comprise it.

In article ,
"Graham J" wrote:

Describing locations by administrative areas, particularly as they
seem to change so relatively frequently in the UK, makes no sense
to me, though this seems increasingly common.

Absolutely, and it is not helped by the Ordnance Survey using administrative
boundaries on their maps.

The OS using admin boundaries is very useful to people who want to know
where current admin boundaries go. They can't really use out-of-date
boundaries.

http://www.abcounties.co.uk/ gives a good background to all this sort of
thing.

There is always going to be a problem over which county boundary to
use. The 'traditional counties' have themselves had boundaries which
shifted - many were undefined until the later middle ages, then some
former counties were made exclaves of other counties (Islandshire
being possibly the best known example). The exclaves were mostly
abolished in the 1830s and other changes were made in the 1880s.

--
http://www.election.demon.co.uk
"The guilty party was the Liberal Democrats and they were hardened offenders,
and coded racism was again in evidence in leaflets distributed in September
1993." - Nigel Copsey, "Contemporary British Fascism", page 62.

"David Boothroyd" wrote in message
...

There is always going to be a problem over which
county boundary to use. The 'traditional counties'
have themselves had boundaries which shifted -
many were undefined until the later middle ages,
then some former counties were made exclaves
of other counties (Islandshire being possibly the
best known example). The exclaves were mostly
abolished in the 1830s and other changes were
made in the 1880s.

The boundaries in this map of counties in 1066 look very similar to the
boundaries in 1960, except in the Northwest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:E...ayCounties.png

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

"Graham J" wrote in message
...
...

Plus, I don't understand why the "Greater" is being lost from "Greater
London". Greater London, to me, means real London plus lots of fringe
areas
that aren't really "London" but close enough to be administered by it.
However, organisations such as BBC London appear to ban the phrase unless
it's in a name of an actual body, eg the GLA.

When we had the GLC the term 'Greater London' did seem to be used a lot
more, though that has never been part of any postal addresses. Now we
have
Greater London Authority the term is just as well defined, but we only
really hear mention of the Mayor Of London and the London Assembly that
comprise it.

And have you noticed how the GLA, Mayor and various other bodies have
re-invented the definition of a "city" to mean the county of Greater London?
And no-one seems to be pick them up on it! In what way the village of Downe
in LB Bromley is part of a "city" I really don't know...

Nick

In message , Nick
writes

And have you noticed how the GLA, Mayor and various other bodies have
re-invented the definition of a "city" to mean the county of Greater London?

No. The City of London is something quite separate and it continues to
have its own Lord Mayor.

The Mayor of London's jurisdiction is laid down by Act of parliament
(principally the London boroughs). What do you mean by the "county of
Greater London" ?

And no-one seems to be pick them up on it! In what way the village of Downe
in LB Bromley is part of a "city" I really don't know...

Perhaps LB ("London Borough") might give you a clue? But why do you drag
"city" into it? The City of London has no authority over the village of
Downe as far as I know.

--
Paul Terry

Paul Terry wrote:
In message , Nick
writes

And have you noticed how the GLA, Mayor and various other bodies have
re-invented the definition of a "city" to mean the county of Greater
London?

No. The City of London is something quite separate and it continues to
have its own Lord Mayor.

He means a city as opposed to The City.

The Mayor of London's jurisdiction is laid down by Act of parliament
(principally the London boroughs). What do you mean by the "county of
Greater London" ?

The GLA area.

And no-one seems to be pick them up on it! In what way the village of
Downe
in LB Bromley is part of a "city" I really don't know...

It's a bit of an anomaly but I imagine Downe relies on Bromley
economically, so it's better in LB Bromley (and therefore ends up being
in "London") than elsewhere.

Being a relatively new Londoner, I'm quite happy with describing or
hearing Croydon, Romford, Uxbridge etc. as being in "London", taking it
by context to mean Greater London; if someone from those places talks
about "going into London", that makes sense too.

The way that conurbations work, it would seem silly for the outer
boroughs to be "returned" to their old counties; transport certainly
works better coordinated on a "London" basis, and that by itself
requires a Greater London authority.

Watford seems to be a case in point; an urban centre linked closely to
other Greater London urban centres with train, Tube and bus links,
requiring TfL to provide services quite a far way outside of their area
(both bus and Tube), and making it more difficult to provide the Croxley
Link. I know TfL provide other services outside their area, but Watford
seems particularly odd since it is served by TfL bus *and* Tube services
(and will be served by TfL Rail services if they take on management of
Silverlink Metro).

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

In article , (Dave Arquati) wrote:

Watford seems to be a case in point; an urban centre linked closely
to other Greater London urban centres with train, Tube and bus links,
requiring TfL to provide services quite a far way outside of their
area (both bus and Tube), and making it more difficult to provide the
Croxley Link. I know TfL provide other services outside their area,
but Watford seems particularly odd since it is served by TfL bus
*and* Tube services (and will be served by TfL Rail services if they
take on management of Silverlink Metro).

pedant Watford has not been served by Tube services since the Bakerloo
was cut back.

--
Peter Beale

Peter Beale ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

pedant Watford has not been served by Tube services since the
Bakerloo was cut back.

I wonder where all those Met tubes are going, then? Not the Uxbridges, not
the Amershams, but the ones with "Watford" on the front...