In article ,
are (Acrosticus) wrote:

And how much time is wasted at council tax payers expense by over paid
bureacrats in town halls all over the place scrambling about to find
out if
theirs is the odd numbered side of a street or the even numbered side
when
someone complains that a street light's out or something simila

When my son was to be born, we caught a bus to Lambeth - to bring him home
we caught the bus from Southwark... The bus stops are opposite each other.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting bandwidth since 1981

Begin Once upon a time there was a badly broken newsreader...

Colin wrote:
"Matthew Rees" wrote in message
...

Nick wrote:
mega snip

I am not anti-GLA, I just don't want the London branding and to be
artificially separated from the Dartford area.

Nick

We have the same issue in Kingston upon Thames which we definately see
as part of Surrey even though we are a London Borough. We get round that
banding issue by being the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames - no
London there!

Matthew


LOL - I think you'll find that the moniker 'Royal Borough' has NOTHING to do
with whether or not the people of your borough want to be part of Greater
London. It is a special status conferred by the monarch. There are three
royal boroughs AFAIK:

Kingston-upon-Thames
Kensington & Chelsea
Windsor & Maidenhead

By your argument the 'Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea' also doesn't
see itself as part of London, which is obviously not the case!

Colin

It is rather easy to refute an argument that I did not make! The point
about being a Royal Borough is that we do not have to call ourselves a
London Borough and so we do not have the branding issue that, e.g.,
London Borough of Bexley has.

Nowhere did I say, or imply, that this is why we became a Royal Borough
or that all Royal Boroughs consider themselves to be outside of London.

Matthew

"Ben Nunn" wrote in message
...

Also, how far back do these ****s want to go?

There was time when the current LBoBexley wasn't part of
Kent either, because Kent didn't exist.

So let's refer to them as Mercia residents then, shall we?

I don't think Kent was in Mercia... but I agree wholeheartedly with

I think it's deeply hypocritical to say that the 1963 London
boundaries are /wrong/, but the 1900 boundaries are OK.

Amen. I don't know who drew up old county boundaries (was it some ancient
king giving land to his cronies?) but they mean little to me, and I don't
see why we should foot the bill for administrative inconvenience caused by
boundaries which don't match. And boroughs providing services for small
parts of neighbouring boroughs is undemocratic: there are people getting
services provided by Kingston Council who only have votes for Richmond
Council.

Personally I have several gripes with the boundary commission's work,
and believe that London is long overdue a revamp - I'd like to realign the
Greater London boundary with the M25, which is the most obvious
'natural' border we have right now.

In some places, maybe, but I don't see why even more of rural Kent needs to
be dragged into LB Bromley. Downe is not London! (Bexleyheath is London,
though.)

In general, I think green spaces and rivers are the best places to put
boundaries. That's why I thought the boundary between Barnet and Harrow
should be east of Mill Hill, instead of down the middle of Edgware High
Street. It would even up the populations a bit as well.

--
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

"CharlesPottins" wrote in message
...

If you take a main road like
Kilburn High Rd. as boundary (as it is between Brent and Camden
and was between Willesden and Hampstead before that,
unless I'm mistaken) then you bisect Kilburn. But people will
still say they live in Kilburn whatever side of the road they live -
except some yuppies who wanted Kilburn High Rd tube renamed
Mapesbury, the local government ward, because they thought it sounded
better.

I think it was Kilburn Jubilee Line station which was to be renamed
Mapesbury, because it is not very near Kilburn, and is presumably damaging
local property prices with its name. I think it should be renamed, and I am
neither a yuppie nor a local.

I've just remembered something else: a report on the pedestrianisation at
Finsbury Park mentioned that the area has been neglected because each of the
3 boroughs sees it as someone else's problem. I don't know how true this is,
or if the same problem exists elsewhere, such as Kilburn (proper) or Crystal
Palace.

--
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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Nick writes
Would you prefer they referred to you as 'Dear resident of the
area formerly part of the county of Middlesex, Kent, Surrey,
Hertfordshire or Essex'?

Quite frankly, that would be better.

Quite frankly that's just ridiculous and merely serves to undermine the
rest of your argument.

I still thiink it would be better whether you think it's ridiculous or
not.

If you did a quick straw poll of people in the street and asked them if
they thought it was better - I reckon they'd all think you were a
nutter.

Only a nutter would suggest such a straw poll on this in the first place :-)
However, I think there would be some sympathy for it actually. I agree it
sounds a bit silly. I didn't say it was sensible - just that it would be
better.

My point was that it was a "reluctanct" London borough judging by the
councillors I've spoken to. Note that Bexley dropped the "London
Borough" part of its name for most purposes some years ago, and now
goes under the alias of Bexley Council.

But my point was that it wasn't a 'new' thing. Not GLA propaganda as
you would believe.

You may well be right that it's not a "new" thing.

I am sure the vast majority of people in Bexley and Bromley would not
describe themselves as living "in London". All the real Londonders I
have
ever met and worked with would never regard such "outlying" areas as
Bexley
as part of London either.

And there are many residents living in the Boroughs of Bexley and
Bromley who do not regard themselves as living in Bexley or Bromley;
but
living in places such as Orpington or Chislehurst. They may have
objected as strongly to being forced to become 'Bexley' or 'Bromley'
residents as you do to being addressed as a Londoner.

Yes, they might've done. So? Let local areas be called what local
people
want them to be.

There has been no need to put a county as part of your address for
many
years. So the correct postal address would end 'Bromley BR1...' or
'Bexley BR5...'.

Correct, but the postal county is still used extensively and I would
guess well over 75% of all mail delivered in the UK still has a
county field. So lots of people will see Bexley and Bromley
addressed as Kent (and NEVER London, which is not acceptable as part
of the address).

Of course even when used, postal counties bore no relation to
geographical or political counties. Addresses in Cockfosters would have
a postal town of Barnet, Herts. Despite Cockfosters being in the
London
Borough of Enfield and (geographically) in the County of Middlesex.

They bore a very strong relationship with almost all counties at one
point.
You've merely picked out some of the (relatively few) that didn't match
up.
Most did!

Postal counties *never* matched geographical counties. The postal
county derived from your postal town - if this was in a different county
(as it frequently was) then you had the wrong postal county.

You mean they never *exactly* 100% matched geographical counties. They were
probably 95% or so correct. But whether that helps or not I don't know.

People living in the London postal districts had London as part of their
address ever since the establishment of those districts (which mutt be
more than a 100 years). So people living in the Borough of Wood Green
in the County of Middlesex would have had their postal address as
London.

So it was a lot more widespread than you think, certainly more than just
a few. The organisation of postal districts/towns/counties was merely
for the operating convenience of the postal service - and for nothing
else.

I am well aware of all that and agree that the organisation was primarily
for the convenience of the postal service.

Not an acceptable characteristic of a "Londoner" I know.

The thing is. I actually have some sympathy with some of what you say,
but when you make a stupid comment like this (which would be offensive
to many people), then it undermines the rest of your argument.

"I think you're being *far* too sensitive."

It was just a little sarcasm, Dave.

I think you are aiming at the wrong target. You're blaming the GLA for
a process which was set in stone in 1965. A process that started long
before that.

I would agree that the GLA is not the only target. I am very happy with a
lot of what the GLA has achieved and I am somewhat loathe to blame them for
anything actually, but I don't feel they are helping the "local identity"
situation at all.

I too think its sad that local identity is being lost, but whereas you
think of it in Bexley vs London, I think of it in smaller terms. I live
in the London Borough of Haringey, I don't know of anyone who, when
asked, would say they live in Haringey - they would say they live in
places such as Tottenham, Wood Green, Crouch End, Muswell Hill, or even
Harringay - but never Haringey. However, if asked if they came from
Middlesex or London, then I reckon most would say London.

Why? Nothing to do with the GLA, just that over the past 100 years, the
area has become more Londonised (for the various reasons outlined
previously).

Agreed.

The old GLC slogan was 'Working for London' and used for many years.
It
appeared on everything that they made or did. I really don't see what
the difference is today with the GLA.

The GLC never referred to Bexley as "south east London" did they.

I don't know. But I can't think of any other term they would have used
for it

From the documentation I've seen they always quoted "Bexley, Kent" and
"Bromley, Kent".

The GLA do, and intentionally so.

Indeed. Bexley is in the south-east corner of Greater London. It seems
eminently sensible to refer to it as south east London.

It might, superficially, seem sensible to call it "south east Greater
London" but I don't think "south east London" is appropriate when a
well-establised area of London SE postcodes is commonly held to be "south
east London" already.

Out of interest, it's amusing to note the Yellow pages directory for "London
south east" is likely to be split into two. One directory will probably be
called "south east London" and cover SE postcodes, the other will be called
"Bromley and Bexley" and cover most DA & BR postcodes (well, largely
boroughs of Dartford, Bexley and Bromley I think).

To me, it makes sense to keep the meaning of "south east London" to be the
London SE postcode district. Nice and simple. Refer to Bexley as Bexely and
Bromley as Bromley, seems simple too.

Let's look at some of the services provided in your area: buses will
have been 'London Transport' since 1933 (and in those days covered a
far
wider area than they do today); the local TV news programmes are called
BBC London News and London Tonight; the local evening paper is the
Evening Standard, whose website is called www.thisislondon.co.uk; fires
are extinguished by the London Fire Brigade; crimes investigated by the
Metropolitan Police; even before WWII, water supplied by the
Metropolitan Water Board; accident victims are tended to by the London
Ambulance Service.

I can quote you an equally long list of services provided by Kent-based
agencies and bodies, but so what?

But you didn't. Perhaps you couldn't think of any. I'd be surprised if
there were any that were as 'visible' as the ones I listed.

Perhaps I couldn't be bothered to type out a long list of them. But your
point about London TV and radio coverage and Evening Standard availability
would appear to indicate places like Sevenoaks are in GL. It isn't (yet).

Bexley is in the editorial and distribution area for "Kent on Sunday" - the
county-wide freebie paper. We are in the editorial area for BBC Radio Kent.
We are covered by Invicta FM, the major Kent ILR. Our borough is part of
the NW Kent Countryside Project, a coalition with Dartford, Sevenoaks,
Gravesend and Kent County councils and the Environment Agency. We have
featured in stories and pieces on ITV1 Meridian, the ITV1 for most of mid
and east Kent even. The eastern half of the borough has Dartford 01322
telephone numbers (Crayford and Erith exchanges), not London 020. We have
lots of white horses on old signs and railings all over the place :-) We
write Kent on our envelopes. We are covered by the Kent association for the
Blind, not the the London association. The Bexley branch of Camra is part
of Kent Camra, not London. For all sporting purposes, we are part of Kent
(Kent County FA, Kent Country Cricket). There are more references to
"Bexley, Kent" on Google than there are to "Bexley, Greater London" or
"Bexley, London". We have the same TOC as Kent, Connex (for now, anyway).
We are closer to Bluewater than Oxford Street. Etc.

For 15 years, there was no level of government for the whole of Greater
London. Now there is, so you are bound to see more London-wide
material.

Agreed.

What I find very puzzling is why you seem to single out the GLA as some
sort of ethnic cleansing body determined to eradicate all signs of
Kentishness. That's not only bizarre but bordering on the paranoid.

I don't mean to single-out the GLA who I think generally do a good job. The
London media is equally if not more to blame on the branding issue. But
there remains a strong and noticeable trend to sever Bexley from the Kent
area. I would like to be wrong!

Nick

"Richard J." wrote in message
...

"Ben Nunn" wrote in message
...

For me, people who live in outlying areas who's big salary and
house are dependent upon a rapid commute into the City of London,
but don't want to live in Greater London because it's somehow
vulgar/common are hypocrites of the worst kind.

Well said, Ben!

Personally, having been brought up in Orpington and Bromley in the 1940's
and '50's, I viewed my parents' insistence that we were in Kent as absurd.
Kent was where you went for a day out. We were quite clearly part of the
Greater London conurbation, as a quick glance at an Ordnance Survey map
made
clear even then. To draw boundaries through the middle of suburbs and
pretend one side is London and the other is Kent doesn't make any sense
except for historical studies.

At least London got it roughly right in 1965. Reading is still absurdly
constrained by its 19th Century boundaries, with its eastern and western
suburbs changing at arbitrary points into Wokingham and West Berkshire.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)


Having lived in Lower Earley in Wokingham DC (but Reading Post Town) I
totally agree. Earley and Woodley have all their natural links with Reading
(most obviously being served by Reading Buses). But there is an arbitrary
line that zig-zags down alley ways and across gardens, and right across the
Reading University campus. The same went for friends who lived in Calcot in
West Berkshire (but which is also clearly part of Reading). What has
happened is that the towns expansion has flooded over the boundary, and it
no longer has any correlation to the facts on the ground.

The absurdity of the situation was highlighted at my fathers diploma
ceremony recently when dignitaries from both Wokingham and Reading councils
attended because the boundary cuts the campus in two!

The Reading conurbation is a prime case for a boundary review. They should
have done it when the unitary authorities were set up, but I guess it would
have affected the viability of Wokingham as a stand-alone unit.

Colin

"Ben Nunn" wrote in message
...
Unless I'm very much mistaken, it was Dave
), in message
who said:
Nick writes
Would you prefer they referred to you as 'Dear resident of the and
area formerly part of the county of Middlesex, Kent, Surrey,
Hertfordshire or Essex'?

Quite frankly, that would be better.

Quite frankly that's just ridiculous and merely serves to undermine
the rest of your argument.


Indeed.

Also, how far back do these ****s want to go?

Nice attitude. Anyone who disagrees with you is a **** I assume?

There was time when the current LBoBexley wasn't part of Kent either,
because Kent didn't exist.

Yeap.

So let's refer to them as Mercia residents then, shall we?

We? You can if you want, even though that would be historically wrong.

I think it's deeply hypocritical to say that the 1963 London boundaries
are
/wrong/, but the 1900 boundaries are OK.

Maybe, but I don't recall that being said.

Personally I have several gripes with the boundary commission's work, and
believe that London is long overdue a revamp - I'd like to realign the
Greater London boundary with the M25, which is the most obvious 'natural'
border we have right now.

I think you're probably right. The London "administrative" area is too
small really, given recent growth. There will be opposition to this,
however. People will say "we don't want to be part of London". How good it
would have been to have an example such as Bexley which retained all it's
quaint Kentish ways and links, but remained under London strategic control.
It would've reassured people, and have done no harm IMO.

If the government persists with its regionalisation agenda, and there is
some kind of SE region, should somewhere like Sevenoaks be under London
control rather than, say, Southampton? Probably, I would say.

Nick

Nick writes
If the government persists with its regionalisation agenda, and there
is some kind of SE region, should somewhere like Sevenoaks be under
London control rather than, say, Southampton? Probably, I would say.

There already is a 'forum' of sorts, the SE Regional Assembly.

http://www.southeast-ra.gov.uk

--
Dave

"Ben Nunn" wrote in message
...
Unless I'm very much mistaken, it was Matthew Rees
), in message
who said:
Nick wrote:
mega snip

I am not anti-GLA, I just don't want the London branding and to be
artificially separated from the Dartford area.

Nick

We have the same issue in Kingston upon Thames which we definately see
as part of Surrey even though we are a London Borough. We get round
that banding issue by being the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames
- no London there!


The situation wasn't helped by Surrey County Council housing their primary
offices there, when it wasn't even under their jurisdiction either.

Yeah, that was kind of odd.

For me, people who live in outlying areas who's big salary and house are
dependent upon a rapid commute into the City of London, but don't want to
live in Greater London because it's somehow vulgar/common are hypocrites
of
the worst kind.

I know what you mean, though I don't want the GL label not because it's
vulgar/common, but because we already have a perfectly good label with a lot
of history and interest behind it.

When all the homes in these suburbs were built of course, they were all
marketed along the lines of "fed up with London? Move out to Kent!" Some
hopes.

Nick

"Jonn Elledge" wrote in message
...

I think that, when Kent stopped being an independent
kingdom and got absorbed by one of the others,
it became part of Wessex, not Mercia.

But then at one stage all of London north of the river (as it is now),
as well as Hertfordshire, was in the Kingdom of Essex. Frankly,
I found that state of affairs far more satisfying.

Of course, more Essex girls.

--
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