"Michael Hoffman" wrote in message
...
wrote:

Similarly, it was a silly act of vandalism to rename the London
Transport Museum just because London Transport happened to cease to
exist (itself a silly act of vandalism).

Is that really the reason?

How many people, when
referring to a London bus say "a Transport for London bus" as opposed
to a "London Transport bus" even nowadays?

I don't usually say either, usually a London Bus.

I'm even more perverse. I'd call it a "bus". "London Transport Bus", or
even "Transport for London Bus" is a triple tautology, surely, for someone
standing at a bus stop in London...

--
Michael Hoffman

"umpston" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Feb 25, 9:43 pm, " wrote:
On Feb 25, 4:44?pm, "umpston" wrote:



On Feb 24, 1:18 am, " wrote:

On Feb 23, 4:27?pm, "John Rowland"

wrote:
Michael Hoffman wrote:
David Cantrell wrote:

And I notice that the announcement was about "London's transport
museum" and not the "London Transport museum". ?Bah.

Well, it is not a museum that is strictly about London Transport,
which no longer exists.

I guess they should rename the Imperial War Museum then.

I agree that dark forces probably want to rename the Imperial War
Museum (like the Imperial War Graves Commission was renamed the
Commonwealth War Graves Commission in the 1960s), but that would be a
mistake since the wars which are remembered and exhibited there are
from the Imperial era.

Likewise the Order of the British Empire was founded in 1902 at the
height of the Empire and the medals of the order bear the insignia of
Edward VII who was monarch at the time, and it would be an insult to
and denial of history to rename it now.

Similarly, it was a silly act of vandalism to rename the London
Transport Museum just because London Transport happened to cease to
exist (itself a silly act of vandalism). How many people, when
referring to a London bus say "a Transport for London bus" as opposed
to a "London Transport bus" even nowadays?

Marc.

I agree with you about the LT museum but not about the rest. ?The War
Graves Commission was renamed after the the Imperial system of
government had ceased to exist for the represented countries. ?The
British Empire was already in terminal decline by the time of WWII.

I would also support a new system of honours which makes no mention of
the former empire. ?Although the empire will always be a part of our
history and heritage I see no point in continuing to celebrate it as
if it still existed. ?There is no insult or dishonour to previous
recipients of the various 'Empire' medals since there is no need to
abolish or rename previous honours, just create some new ones for
future recipients. ?Like Edward VII did in 1902.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So what would you choose as (a) the new name for the Imperial War
Museum and (b) the replacement for the Order of the British Empire?

Just curious!

I see no need to change names for change's sake, and since honours are
archaic and pertaining to history by their very nature (e.g. very few
women and even fewer men wear garters in the 21st Century!), and
nobody but a fool could forget, with the ritualistic self-flagellation
indulged by the intelligentsia in the media and elsewhere that the
British Empire was the most evil concept since Original Sin, perhaps
it does no harm to keep us all in mind of that most ignominious period
of our history lest we should ever be tempted to repeat it!

Just joking!

Marc.

A sobering thought! Like you I dislike change purely for the sake of
it and see no point in changing the name of the Imperial War Museum
since, unlike the War Graves Commission, no other countries are
responsible for running it.

Changing the honours system would be worth it since these awards are
supposed to be given in recognition of the great things people are
doing now. They are devalued by their association with our vanished
imperial past, as well as by political sleaze, but that is another
subject off-topic for this news group.

It would be like a German winning national recognition for curing diseases,
only to be awarded the Herman Goerring Medal of Outstanding Anti-Semitism or
something ridiculous. Sure, it's history, but being history doesn't mean
it's permanent. Why mar someone's achievement by giving them an award named
after something they might not appreciate or approve of , especially by your
own government and country? Do the dead recipients give a rats ass if it
was renamed?

On Feb 28, 2:34 pm, "John Rowland"
wrote:
Martin Underwood wrote:
John Rowland wrote in message

Since there are three huge roads called Edgware Road in London, and
none of them is actually in Edgware, having even one station called
Edgware Road is intolerable!

So you'd advocate renaming Oxford Street, York Way/Road and Liverpool
Street as well, would you?

Oxford Street station was renamed a long time ago, and I do believe it
should be renamed again to St Giles. I am not aware of a station called York
Way, and renaming York Rd station would not pass a cost benefit analysis
these days.

As for Liverpool St, yes, it should be renamed, particularly since a number
of stations which have trains to London Liverpool St also have trains to
Liverpool Lime St.

cpnfusion

Huh? ;-)

there should only be one
station with each name: Edgware Road, Shepherd's Bush and Hammersmith
are candidates for this rationalisation.

I agree where the Shepherds Bushes are concerned because they are in quite
different places. I see no benefit in giving the Edgware Roads separate
names - I think they should both have the same name but a different one to
the one they have now. Hammersmith is fine - it's not the best interchange
on the map, but it isn't the worst either, and giving the stations different
names would only con people into avoiding interchanging there, thus wasting
their time and perhaps money.



Following the examples of towns in Kent, the Hammersmith stations
should be renamed Hammersmith East and Hammersmith West. And the
Shepherds Bush stations should be renamed Shepherds Bush North and
Shepherds Bush South (take your pick which is which).

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 17:08:13 GMT, "d" wrote:

Why mar someone's achievement by giving them an award named
after something they might not appreciate or approve of

They can always turn it down.