On Jul 18, 7:57*pm, Arthur Figgis wrote:
Lots of places have signs but no distinct government. I think I've seen
"England" on signs, and even "London" is rather complex concept to pin
down as a specific "thing".

England exists, legally, though - e.g. the Department of [English]
Health.

London is easy: the Corporation's area is the City of London, the GLA
area is Greater London, and there isn't anything else.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 17:49:21 -0700 (PDT), John B
wrote in misc.transport.urban-transit:

On Jul 18, 7:57*pm, Arthur Figgis wrote:
Lots of places have signs but no distinct government. I think I've seen
"England" on signs, and even "London" is rather complex concept to pin
down as a specific "thing".

England exists, legally, though - e.g. the Department of [English]
Health.

London is easy: the Corporation's area is the City of London, the GLA
area is Greater London, and there isn't anything else.

Does the GLA cover all of urbanized area and adjacent suburbs?

On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 21:01:10 -0500, Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 17:49:21 -0700 (PDT), John B
wrote in misc.transport.urban-transit:

On Jul 18, 7:57Â*pm, Arthur Figgis wrote:
Lots of places have signs but no distinct government. I think I've seen
"England" on signs, and even "London" is rather complex concept to pin
down as a specific "thing".

England exists, legally, though - e.g. the Department of [English]
Health.

Not so simple, the DH deals with English health matters which are
otherwise devolved to the other countries but it also deals with other
matters (e.g. European Health Insurance Card) as a United Kingdom
entity.

London is easy: the Corporation's area is the City of London, the GLA
area is Greater London, and there isn't anything else.

There is. The Inns of Court are also local authorities for many
purposes, e.g. :-
" “district�, in relation to a local authority in Greater London,
means a London borough, the City of London, the Inner Temple or the
Middle Temple, as the case may be; " [s1(1) Public Health Act 1936]

There are also areas outwith the capital (e.g. Hampstead Heath, Queens
Park) which are its responsibility, not that of the containing local
authority; this extends to having their own constabulary patrolling
Hampstead Heath.

Does the GLA cover all of urbanized area and adjacent suburbs?

Why should it ? The areas surrounding Greater London have their own
local authorities.

On Jul 19, 4:54*am, Charles Ellson wrote:

[snip]

There are also areas outwith the capital (e.g. Hampstead Heath, Queens
Park) which are its responsibility, not that of the containing local
authority; this extends to having their own constabulary patrolling
Hampstead Heath.

There you're taking the City of London to be the "capital". There is
however no officially or legally defined "capital" of the UK, nor
indeed of England - so whether the capital is specifically the City of
London, or some wider notion of London, is itself something of a moot
point. I'd suggest that one could argue for a wider definition of
London being the capital 'by convention' (as opposed to 'by law'), not
least because government is centred on Westminster as opposed to the
square mile - however there's never going to be a definitive answer to
this, because "capital" is not defined.

The UK is not alone here - for example France has no (official)
capital city either.

On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 03:33:12 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:


On Jul 19, 4:54*am, Charles Ellson wrote:

[snip]

There are also areas outwith the capital (e.g. Hampstead Heath, Queens
Park) which are its responsibility, not that of the containing local
authority; this extends to having their own constabulary patrolling
Hampstead Heath.

There you're taking the City of London to be the "capital". There is
however no officially or legally defined "capital" of the UK, nor
indeed of England

It was official according to whichever monarch changed it from
Winchester in the 12th(?) century. There is more to English Law than
mere statutes.

- so whether the capital is specifically the City of
London, or some wider notion of London,

"Some wider notion" of London is not a city thus cannot be the capital
city.

is itself something of a moot
point. I'd suggest that one could argue for a wider definition of
London being the capital 'by convention' (as opposed to 'by law'), not
least because government is centred on Westminster

The location of the government is irrelevant, other countries have
their governments outwith their capitals.

as opposed to the
square mile - however there's never going to be a definitive answer to
this, because "capital" is not defined.

The UK is not alone here - for example France has no (official)
capital city either.

So that's about 436,000 gouv.fr web pages you need to alter. The year
987 or thereabouts would probably get you at least one mark in a
French primary school exam.

Free Lunch wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 17:49:21 -0700 (PDT), John B
wrote in misc.transport.urban-transit:

On Jul 18, 7:57 pm, Arthur Figgis wrote:
Lots of places have signs but no distinct government. I think I've seen
"England" on signs, and even "London" is rather complex concept to pin
down as a specific "thing".
England exists, legally, though - e.g. the Department of [English]
Health.

London is easy: the Corporation's area is the City of London, the GLA
area is Greater London, and there isn't anything else.

Does the GLA cover all of urbanized area and adjacent suburbs?

No: see the reply which should come in above. And I think you mean
adjacent towns.

John B wrote:
On Jul 18, 7:57 pm, Arthur Figgis wrote:
Lots of places have signs but no distinct government. I think I've seen
"England" on signs, and even "London" is rather complex concept to pin
down as a specific "thing".

England exists, legally, though - e.g. the Department of [English]
Health.

London is easy: the Corporation's area is the City of London, the GLA
area is Greater London, and there isn't anything else.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

Thanks, mate. I get so tired of telling people that Watford is not in
London, or, conversely, a motorway service area.

On Jul 19, 1:49*am, John B wrote:

On Jul 18, 7:57*pm, Arthur Figgis wrote:

Lots of places have signs but no distinct government. I think I've seen
"England" on signs, and even "London" is rather complex concept to pin
down as a specific "thing".

England exists, legally, though - e.g. the Department of [English]
Health.

Rubbish - see Charles Ellson's answer. The Department of Health has a
whole number of UK-wide responsibilities as well as its (primary)
responsibility for healthcare in England and Wales.

England does of course exist legally - though there are a number of
areas where a reference to England is actually an abbreviated
reference to England *and* Wales (e.g. reference to contracts being
enforced according to "English law" in "English courts"). In the past
one could have said that constitutionally Wales was basically part of
England, but with devolution this description would be less apt.


London is easy: the Corporation's area is the City of London, the GLA
area is Greater London, and there isn't anything else.

Yes there is. There's the London postal district - and there's a whole
number of places within Greater London that are outwith the London
postal district (e.g. in the south east fringes there's lots of places
with "Bromley" as the post town and hence BRx postcodes - back when
the postal county was properly included as part of the address, these
places would have had Kent in their address too, and many people still
continue to include it).

Sewardstone, near Epping Forest, meanwhile is outside Greater London
but has a London postcode - E4.

The London telephone dialling code 020 covers a larger area than the
London postal district, including many places outside of Greater
London. Meanwhile other places on the edges of Greater London have
dialling codes other than 020 London.

The Met Police District used to cover an area larger than Greater
London, but this was rationalised when the GLA was created and these
areas were transferred to the appropriate home counties police force.

The London fares (aka Travelcard) zones of course cover an area larger
than Greater London - and that's the case even if we're only talking
about the 'proper' zones 1-6.

I think there's a number of other examples where an official or quasi-
official body of one sort or another defines London in different ways.

On Jul 19, 10:55*am, Mizter T wrote:
Lots of places have signs but no distinct government. I think I've seen
"England" on signs, and even "London" is rather complex concept to pin
down as a specific "thing".

England exists, legally, though - e.g. the Department of [English]
Health.

Rubbish - see Charles Ellson's answer. The Department of Health has a
whole number of UK-wide responsibilities as well as its (primary)
responsibility for healthcare in England and Wales.

ITYM 'in England', not 'in England and Wales'.

England does of course exist legally - though there are a number of
areas where a reference to England is actually an abbreviated
reference to England *and* Wales (e.g. reference to contracts being
enforced according to "English law" in "English courts"). In the past
one could have said that constitutionally Wales was basically part of
England, but with devolution this description would be less apt.

That's why I used the DoH as an example, as Englandandwales is a
single entity for most legal and non-devolved governmental purposes.

London is easy: the Corporation's area is the City of London, the GLA
area is Greater London, and there isn't anything else.

Yes there is. There's the London postal district - and there's a whole
number of places within Greater London that are outwith the London
postal district (e.g. in the south east fringes there's lots of places
with "Bromley" as the post town and hence BRx postcodes

Is there a London postal district? AIUI, there are various postcodes
that fall within Greater London, including E ones, BR ones, and so on.
Some of these sorting offices also cover areas outside London.

Similarly, I'm sure there are pizza establishments in outer London
that deliver to Hertfordshire, Essex, Surrey and Kent, and pizza
establishments in Herts, Essex, Surrey and Kent that deliver to
London.

- back when
the postal county was properly included as part of the address, these
places would have had Kent in their address too, and many people still
continue to include it).

And back when they were in Kent, they were in Kent. This isn't
relevant now.

Sewardstone, near Epping Forest, meanwhile is outside Greater London
but has a London postcode - E4.

It has a postcode that's primarily used within Greater London, yes.
I'm surprised by that actually - how did the PO's E district get so
far out...?

The London telephone dialling code 020 covers a larger area than the
London postal district, including many places outside of Greater
London. Meanwhile other places on the edges of Greater London have
dialling codes other than 020 London.

My father lives in India and has a +44 20 phone number. My office is
in Islington and has an +1 646 phone number. Are BT phone numbers even
still /supposed/ to be geographical?

The Met Police District used to cover an area larger than Greater
London, but this was rationalised when the GLA was created and these
areas were transferred to the appropriate home counties police force.

ie this isn't relevant now.

The London fares (aka Travelcard) zones of course cover an area larger
than Greater London - and that's the case even if we're only talking
about the 'proper' zones 1-6.

'The TfL zonal area'. Yes, OK, I'll give you that one, ish.

I think there's a number of other examples where an official or quasi-
official body of one sort or another defines London in different ways.

Examples (from the present day)?

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

In message
, at
03:32:10 on Sun, 19 Jul 2009, John B remarked:
My father lives in India and has a +44 20 phone number. My office is
in Islington and has an +1 646 phone number.

Are they VoIP?

Are BT phone numbers even still /supposed/ to be geographical?

If they are traditional landlines, then each exchange has a specific
area it covers. But it's been possible for a generation to get "out of
area" numbers if you paid enough.
--
Roland Perry