In article , Nick
writes
Of course Biggin Hill is South London.

I bet over 80% of Biggin Hill residents would say they live in Kent a not
"south London". I would suggest you are completely out of touch with local
feelings and views held by those on the outskirts of GL.

I live in Cambridgeshire. "South London" is the area south of the Thames
and north of the M25.

[Consider this a turnaround for the "nothing north of Watford" attitude
of many Londoners.]

(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.
Because they were having to contribute to the cost of it I thought?

Because they were in London. QED.

--
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 , Ian Jelf
writes
Half of my back garden *is* in a different parish to the rest of the property.
Drifting off topic, I know but I've always wondered about situations
like that. How does your Council Tax work? Does each authority levy a
charge (or aren't these particular parish councils precepting ones?

Yes, they are precepting ones. Indeed, for some years the one including
the house had the highest precept in the District, sometimes
significantly higher than the District Council's precept. [Mind, the DC
had a zero precept at least once.]

The answer is that there's no council tax due on garden land, so it
doesn't become an issue. On the other hand, it means that my (and other
houses) garden fence is required to stop at the boundary - beyond it we
can only have hedges.

--
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

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 17:31:11 +0100, Ian Jelf
wrote:
In article , Clive D. W. Feather
writes

(2) If Bromley was in Kent, why did the self-centered prats interfere in the
Fares Fair arrangements?
I also suspect that older Bromley (and Bexley, etc.) residents get a far
better deal with their Freedom Passes than do their counterparts in
Kent, Surrey and so on. If I was living in an outer London area I'd be
*delighted* at *being* under GLA administration for that reason alone!

Tell me about it. The grief we get from the WOOPies about not being able
to get free travel while all those nasty people from Kingston & Sutton
get it and come shopping to "our" Epsom is nobody's business.

--
Mike Pellatt (no longer a councillor so can call them WOOPies safely....)
Epsom & Ewell. In Surrey. Just. But just over 120 years ago The Oval
was in Surrey....

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 16:36:28 +0100, Tony Bryer
wrote:
In article , Matthew Rees
wrote:
I live on the Kingston upon Thames / Richmond border and until
the last boundary revision the borough boundary went through
some properties and even following the boundary revision we
still have some roads which are in one borough but which
receive some services, e.g. refuse collection, from the other
council.

I once worked for R.B.Kingston and the boundaries were not at all
logical. On the NE side the boundary between Kingston and Merton
is the Beverley Brook so properties either side of the A3 fall
into both boroughs, and the station estate at Worcester Park
(Pembury Avenue etc) could only be reached by going out of the
borough into Sutton. A colleague of mine went to deal with an
'illegal' garage being built in Herne Road, Surbiton and was told
sharply that whilst the house was in Surbiton, the garage was in
Elmbridge who had given permission for its erection

There's another funny one about the Kingston boundary. Between
Epsom & Ewell it is along the Bonesgate stream north from
Chessington Road (then it goes East along Chessington Road
to Headley Close). However, it was drawn along the route of the
stream many, many years ago. And of course the stream has moved
Kingston-wards. When "Porky" White sold his site (across the
stream in Epsom & Ewewll) for housebuilding, little
did he know that part of the land he'd sold actually belonged to
RBK. I believe the matter was settled for a fairly trivial
sum.

The useless info you collect as ward councillor........

--
Mike Pellatt

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 18:10:25 +0100 Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
} In article , Matthew
} Malthouse writes
} } 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.
} [...]
}
} I don't dispute it. But I thought there was also an issue with Kent
} being at war with the surrounding pagan territories.

Almost certainly. Although distinguishing between Kent and "surrounding
pagan territories" is a bit moot since Ethelbert _wansn't_ a Christian.
Later he did convert but didn't require it of his people. One really
has to wonder if he did so just to stop the wife nagging... ;-)

Yup, there was political mileage in having Augustine stay on his patch.
And advantage for Augustine too as London was then much disputed, very
likely a dangerous place to be.

Mind you, what Augustine got was just a _little_ church and rather out
of the way so Ethelbert may well have been hedging his bets.

It doesn't really matter if London to Canterbury is a five day trip by
ox-cart or an hour an a half on the train; people don't change that much
:-)

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 Tue, 29 Jul 2003 13:41:11 -0000 Mike Pellatt wrote:
}
} On a serious note, there is a battle to be fought to prevent the
} M25 becoming the London boundary.

Eh... Why?

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 Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:54:22 +0000 (UTC), Matthew Malthouse
wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 13:41:11 -0000 Mike Pellatt wrote:
}
} On a serious note, there is a battle to be fought to prevent the
} M25 becoming the London boundary.

Eh... Why?

Because the suggestion has already been mooted around.

Of course, if you think it's A Good Idea then you won't think
there's a battle to be fought.

--
Mike Pellatt

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 17:27:03 -0000 Mike Pellatt wrote:
} On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:54:22 +0000 (UTC), Matthew Malthouse
} wrote:
} On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 13:41:11 -0000 Mike Pellatt wrote:
} }
} } On a serious note, there is a battle to be fought to prevent the
} } M25 becoming the London boundary.
}
} Eh... Why?
}
} Because the suggestion has already been mooted around.
}
} Of course, if you think it's A Good Idea then you won't think
} there's a battle to be fought.

So why is there a battle to be fought?

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/