In article , Nick
writes
If only it were just a way of administering local government! These were
the kind of words used when GL was created in the 60s. Now, of course, we
have the media referring to such things as "Biggin Hill in south London",
which is completely crazy.
[...]

Of course Biggin Hill is South London.

Gawd, what a whinger.

If you address something to Bexley or
Bromley you put "Bexley, Kent, DA5..." or "Bromley, Kent, BR1...". When you
look on a map it appears that Bexley and Bromley aren't in Kent.

(1) Postal addresses are designed for the convenience of the GPO,
nothing else.

(2) If Bromley was in Kent, why did the self-centered prats interfere in
the Fares Fair arrangements? If you want a say in London affairs, then
damn well admit you're in London and stop moaning.

--
Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address

In article , Ben Nunn
writes
There was time when the current LBoBexley wasn't part of Kent either,
because Kent didn't exist.

Kent has been around a *long* time. The reason we have an Archbishop of
Canterbury rather than one of London (the obvious centre for a province)
is because Kent was at war with everyone else.

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

Kent was never part of Mercia.

--
Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address

Unless I'm very much mistaken, it was Nick ),
in message who said:

Because they were having to contribute to the cost of it I thought?
However, I agree with you that they were wrong to try and wreck it.
It was a commendable scheme.

I'm not sure people in Bexley or Bromley care about London affairs
(other than those that directly impact on them). I can well believe
the influence a borough such as Bexley has on London affairs is next
to nothing anyway.


I would be interested to hear what percentage of people living in Bexley
commute to the City of London, compared to those who commute to Canterbury?

Economically and Infrastructurally, Bexley is a suburb of London, as indeed
are many places further out. London is an expansive conurbation, with the
City at its centre, and to pretend that Bexley has more in common with the
middle of Kent is simply dismissive of all the London has done for the
majority of Bexley residents.

I dislike the GLA as much as anyone, and voted against it, but multiple
levels of bloaty, tax-felching regional governement is potentially a problem
anywhere, not just London. I'm sure there's a lot of political careerists
out there who'd love to have a Kentish Assembly to sit on.

BTN

"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message
...

If Bromley was in Kent, why did the self-centered prats interfere in
the Fares Fair arrangements?

Because they were part-funding it.

--
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

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 07:58:54 +0100 Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
} In article , Ben Nunn
} writes
} There was time when the current LBoBexley wasn't part of Kent either,
} because Kent didn't exist.
}
} Kent has been around a *long* time. The reason we have an Archbishop of
} Canterbury rather than one of London (the obvious centre for a province)
} is because Kent was at war with everyone else.

The reason was that Kent had a Christian queen, Bertha, who brownbeat
her hubby Ethelbert into giving Augustine a chuch. Aware perhaps of the
political capital to be gained Ethelbert provided support and evetually
agreed to be baptised thus persuading Augustine to set up shop in
Canterbury on a permanent basis contrary to the orders of Gregory back at
HQ who had set the archepiscopal seats of the two English provinces he
wanted at London and York.

Matthew
--
Il est important d'être un homme ou une femme en colère; le jour où nous
quitte la colère, ou le désir, c'est cuit. - Barbara

http://www.calmeilles.co.uk/

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 22:19:40 +0100 John Rowland wrote:
}
} 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.

What would you name it? "Shoot Up Hill"?

Matthew
--
Il est important d'être un homme ou une femme en colère; le jour où nous
quitte la colère, ou le désir, c'est cuit. - Barbara

http://www.calmeilles.co.uk/

"Matthew Malthouse" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 22:19:40 +0100 John Rowland wrote:
}
} 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.

What would you name it? "Shoot Up Hill"?

I don't have a problem with Mapesbury.

--
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

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 19:07:24 +0100 John Rowland wrote:
} "Matthew Malthouse" wrote in message
} .. .
} On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 22:19:40 +0100 John Rowland wrote:
} }
} } 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.
}
} What would you name it? "Shoot Up Hill"?
}
} I don't have a problem with Mapesbury.

Where does that name come from? I don't know that area very well and
it's not famillar to me.

Matthew
--
Il est important d'être un homme ou une femme en colère; le jour où nous
quitte la colère, ou le désir, c'est cuit. - Barbara

http://www.calmeilles.co.uk/

"Nick" wrote in message ...

I didn't claim otherewise. 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.

It's still formally known as the London Borough of Bexley though.

And damned right too - if it walks like a dog, wags its tail and barks
like a dog, then it's probably a dog, and Welling, Bexleyheath,
Thamesmead, Belvedere, Sidcup, Erith and the rest are all identikit
parts of London suburbia - where's the villages, towns and greenery
that you'd associate with Kent? No, it's houses, houses, houses,
shops, traffic jams and red buses - blow me, it's London!

(the same for much of Bromley borough too - though why Downe, Biggin
Hill and Keston are in there beats me...)

Of course, if you really want to be in Kent, then we'll stop
subsidising your public transport, police and fire services, plus all
the other useful things you get from being part of the capital city.
When you end up a horrible, backward place like Gravesend, please send
us a postcard.

Darryl

"John Rowland" wrote in message ...
The thread about Dartford started me thinking. Which is the stupidest
boundary in London?

The Lewisham-Greenwich boundary through Deptford, Lewisham and west
Greenwich used to zig-zag all over the shop although it was
straightened out a few years ago, and Lewisham got to keep all of
Elverson Road and the Sayes Court Estate.

I think the boundary over Blackheath was changed too, so which borough
cut which bits of grass became clearer.

Darryl