Hi all,

There is a programme on Channel 5 on Friday (a week today) about Bazalgette,
who I believe was responsible for the Embankment, so I would imagine that
there will be some info about the construction of the Metropolitan District
Railway 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

John Rowland wrote:
Hi all,

There is a programme on Channel 5 on Friday (a week today) about
Bazalgette, who I believe was responsible for the Embankment, so I
would imagine that there will be some info about the construction of
the Metropolitan District Railway as well.

Sir Joseph Bazalgette built the Embankment as a way of routing his new
sewers through London towards the sea. This left room for the District
Railway, but he was not involved in its construction AFAIK, and there is
little in the programme about it.

However, the programme is very good. (I've seen it before.) "Documentary
profile of Sir Joseph Bazalgette, the man who designed the pioneering sewage
system that helped end the cholera and typhoid outbreaks in Victorian
London. Presented by television producer Peter Bazalgette, the civil
engineer's great-great-grandson." - who keeps referring to his
great-great-grandfather as "Sir Joe". Friday 15 Aug, 20:00, on five.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 22:55:46 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote:

However, the programme is very good. (I've seen it before.) "Documentary
profile of Sir Joseph Bazalgette, the man who designed the pioneering sewage
system that helped end the cholera and typhoid outbreaks in Victorian
London. Presented by television producer Peter Bazalgette, the civil
engineer's great-great-grandson." - who keeps referring to his
great-great-grandfather as "Sir Joe". Friday 15 Aug, 20:00, on five.


Victor Lewis-Smith gave it a good review the first time. He described
as a documentary about a man who moved London's sewage made by his
grandson who's good a producing sewage (Balzagette the TV producer was
responsible for Big Brother series I).


Rob.
--
rob at robertwoolley dot co dot uk

"John Rowland" wrote in message
...
Hi all,

There is a programme on Channel 5 on Friday (a week today) about Bazalgette,
who I believe was responsible for the Embankment, so I would imagine that
there will be some info about the construction of the Metropolitan District
Railway as well.

He also built Hammersmith and Putney bridges.


Robin

In article , David
Boothroyd writes
Bazalgette was responsible for the whole of London as Chief Engineer of
the Metropolitan Board of Works, the now thankfully forgotten institution
of London government which became so infamous for corruption,
overspending, incompetence and waste. I hope the programme does not
present the MBW as being anything other than the worst institution of
government ever foisted on the people of London.

The MBW was the first authority with authority for overall planning in
London and was set up because although London had the largest population
of any city in the (western) world, any civic planning (and there was
precious little) was performed at a local or parish council level. It
only took a few cholera epidemics for government to realise that an
overall co-ordinating body was required to plan public health, hence the
MBW.
Yes, it became infamous for corruption, overspending, incompetence and
waste, but that pretty well sums up how the GB and Empire worked during
the 19th century, with governance based on patronage and special
interests.
Bazalgette comes over as a surprisingly decent and honest man given
the people he worked with. Maybe he just stuck to the engineering and
let someone else cope with the political stuff like negotiating with
building companies, buying up land, evicting tenants, etc.

--
Martin @ Strawberry Hill

David Boothroyd writes
No, that was the system of local Government foisted on London by the
Tories in the mid-80s.

No, I included that. At least there were elected Borough Councils then.
There weren't in 1856-89.

Elected Borough Councils who were tightly controlled by the Government
(in particular their budgets); Quangos who were controlled by the
Government; and other 'services' controlled directly by Whitehall.

Then there was the ILEA scandal... bloody Tebbit.

--
Dave

David Boothroyd writes
Then there was the ILEA scandal... bloody Tebbit.

Which particular ILEA scandal?

ILEA was previously run by a committee of the GLC. When the GLC was
abolished the Government opted for a directly-elected education
authority - making ILEA unique in that respect.

It was meant to be part of a brave new world of making local politics
more accountable; directly-electing authorities. In the future it could
be extended to other education authorities - possibly even health
authorities and who knows...

The problem was that the voters of inner London elected a Labour-run
ILEA. This wouldn't do as the Tories had spent a lot of time and effort
to get rid of the Labour-run GLC (and Metropolitan County Councils
elsewhere). So they decided to allow individual boroughs to opt-out of
ILEA - but as that legislation went through Parliament, Tebbit tabled an
amendment to abolish ILEA completely.

So much for local democracy.

--
Dave

David Boothroyd writes
In article , Dave
wrote:
David Boothroyd writes
Then there was the ILEA scandal... bloody Tebbit.

Which particular ILEA scandal?

ILEA was previously run by a committee of the GLC.

No. ILEA was a separate standalone authority created in 1965 to replace
the Education functions of the LCC. Members of the GLC for Inner London
electoral areas were ex officio members of ILEA. Each Borough Council
in Inner London also appointed a member. ILEA was not part of the GLC.

Pedantry.

"While the 20 outer boroughs were responsible for education, in the 12
inner boroughs (and the City of London) it was provided by the Inner
London Education Authority (ILEA), an offshoot of the GLC. "
http://www.alg.gov.uk/doc.asp?doc=8649&cat=989

When the GLC was abolished the Government opted for a directly-elected
education authority - making ILEA unique in that respect.

Unique in the 1980s but not unprecedented.
[...]

Again, more pedantry.

It was meant to be part of a brave new world of making local politics
more accountable; directly-electing authorities. In the future it could
be extended to other education authorities - possibly even health
authorities and who knows...

I don't think so.
[...]

I do. That was the clear implication of the rhetoric used by the Tories
at the time.

So they decided to allow individual boroughs to opt-out of
ILEA - but as that legislation went through Parliament, Tebbit tabled an
amendment to abolish ILEA completely.

You have your timings wrong. The decision to abolish ILEA was taken in
1988. Norman Tebbit left the government in 1987. The 1987 manifesto,
over which Tebbit would have had some control (although not a great
deal) only pledged to allow the inner boroughs to opt out from ILEA.
The change in policy was made by Kenneth Baker.

I didn't say that Tebbit was part of the Government. I said he tabled
the amendment - back benchers can and do propose amendments to
Government bills.

Or are you accusing Peter Brooke of lying to Parliament?

"The abolition of ILEA was not initiated by the then Government, but by
a Back Bench amendment tabled by Lord Tebbit and my right hon. Friend
the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). They were unusual proposers of a
Back Bench amendment, although it was, in the event, successful and
effective."
http://www.parliament.the-stationery...00/cmstand/f/s
t000606/am/00606s03.htm

--
Dave

David Boothroyd writes

"Pedant" is an insult directed by the inaccurate against the accurate.

No, it's an accurate description for people who indulge in irrelevant
nit-picking.

Precise enough for the purpose of the subject under discussion.

I suppose you would say the same if your son was marked down for writing
that Pi was 3.

That's just being stupid.

For most purposes 3.14159 is acceptable. For other purposes a more
precise value may be required. 22/7 is also generally acceptable as
'shorthand', although imprecise.

I could point out that the accepted value of Pi has varied through time
- including a period when it was '3' - but that would be just pedantic.
http://mathforum.org/isaac/problems/pi2.html

However, there is little to be gained from this discussion if you wish
to make ridiculous comparisons.

--
Dave

"Dave" wrote in message
...
David Boothroyd writes
No, that was the system of local Government foisted on London by
the
Tories in the mid-80s.

No, I included that. At least there were elected Borough Councils
then.
There weren't in 1856-89.

Elected Borough Councils who were tightly controlled by the
Government
(in particular their budgets);

....which was a very good thing given the tenuous grip on reality many
of them had at that time which was, lest we forget, the height of the
'Loony Left' era