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 15:05:11 +0100, "Basil Jet"
wrote:

John B wrote:

(for m.t.u-t'ers, Middlesex hasn't existed for 44 years)

Middlesex exists, it just isn't recognised by the national government.

Tell the Land Registry, they have a lot of titles in the MX number
series with descriptions using "Middlesex" and many records depend on
information derived from the Middlesex Deeds Registry (closed 1938).

and the Information Commissioner's Office :-
"ICO prosecutes Middlesex law firm" (Press Release 3 Mar 2009)
[http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documen...not030309.pdf]


http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&...0.3 2,,2,0.55

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&...5. 18,,2,0.28

I understand that these signs were put up by Enfield Council less than 15
years ago. I'm not aware of any others.

There are similar signs in Harrow and other burghs on the Middlesex
border. AFAIR they are officially tourist signs erected in
co-operation with one of the county's historical associations. If they
weren't erected there would not be a county boundary sign as they were
IME never preceded or accompanied by any signs indicating the Greater
London boundary.

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 Sat, 18 Jul 2009 11:15:31 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote:

On 18 July, 18:55, David Hansen
wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 15:05:11 +0100 someone who may be "Basil Jet"
wrote this:-

Middlesex exists, it just isn't recognised by the national government.

There is still a cricket club with that name, a university and the
post office know where it is.

This where someone usually pops up saying that the current boundaries
are just "administrative boundaries", implying that past
administrative boundaries somehow delimit real places in a different
way.

They are all administrative boundaries. I tend to think that current
boundaries and authorities are the only ones worth worrying about,
because they are current.

Don't get a job dealing with land or associated legal documentation
where many of the related entities have not been "current" for many
years.

Bruce wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 07:17:38 +0100, Martin Edwards
wrote:

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:41:06 on
Fri, 17 Jul 2009, Recliner remarked:
Leave The Market to sort everything out in everyone's best interests.
The Market is a benign force for Good, unlike Regulation, which is
Evil.
So you'd prefer that all NXEC's customers lost their money (tickets
bought in advance etc) if they cease trading?
Obviously that won't happen,
Because it's regulated, and not a free market.

but I wonder what the exact mechanism for the transfer will be? Will
the new DfT ECML operating company simply take over NXEC, complete
with all its staff, leases, assets, contracts, etc, or will there be
some messy transfer of all of these to the new company?
It seemed to work OK when GNER handed back the keys.
Until the next company screwed up too. Say what you like about
Stalin...........



Are you sure you didn't mean Mussolini?

I was adapting it.

Fig wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 07:21:49 +0100, Martin Edwards
wrote:

Basil Jet wrote:
Tim Fenton wrote:
"Paul Terry" wrote in message
...
The only feature of London minicabs which is designed specifically
to serve
the interest of the public rather than the interest of the minicab
drivers/bosses is the fact that the drivers are verified to have
been convicted of no rapes since coming to this country.
There's more to it than that. Vehicles have to be MOT'd every six
months rather than every year, drivers have to have a medical
certificate supplied by their GP and they have to prove that they
have the appropriate and current insurance for public hire.
Okay, but all of these things are to prevent the minicab driver from
ending or ruining the life of the customer, not to ensure that he
actually provides a service to the customer or the city. For instance
a minicab office which tells a tourist that such and such is miles
away when it's really around the corner, and then charges the tourist
a fortune for a circuitous ride, would be in no danger of losing its
"PCO approved" status.

And they have to have The Knowledge ...
Minicabs are not required to have The Knowledge, or a satnav or even
a map.

A kind taxi driver in London, where I am not resident, once told me
the way to the street I needed, which was in walking distance. I
doubt whether the response from a minicab driver would have been the
same.

His actions may not have been born out of kindness, Martin. 'Black Cab'
drivers are not allowed to decline fares (within certain maximums.) They
are, understandably, reluctant to accept a short journey if, for
example, they have just spent a long time waiting to get to the front of
a long taxi rank. I bet it would have been a different story if you had
hailed him on the street.

Oh well. :-(

Basil Jet wrote:
Martin Edwards wrote:
A kind taxi driver in London, where I am not resident, once told me
the way to the street I needed, which was in walking distance. I
doubt whether the response from a minicab driver would have been the
same.

If he was on the front of a rank which he had taken some time to progress
through, then encouraging you to walk was self-interest rather than
altruism.


He was in slow traffic.

John B wrote:
On Jul 17, 8:52 pm, Bruce wrote:
There is a huge variation around the country in the local authorities'
requirements for minicabs. I have a friend who use to run a minicab
business in Aylesbury, but now runs a similar business in Middlesex.

Time traveller, is he?

(for m.t.u-t'ers, Middlesex hasn't existed for 44 years)

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

Right. Yet people still give it as a postal address, even though you
are not supposed to give either district or county. Another favourite
is Kingston, Surrey. Oh no it isn't.

Basil Jet wrote:
John B wrote:
(for m.t.u-t'ers, Middlesex hasn't existed for 44 years)

Middlesex exists, it just isn't recognised by the national government.

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&...0.3 2,,2,0.55

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&...5. 18,,2,0.28

I understand that these signs were put up by Enfield Council less than 15
years ago. I'm not aware of any others.


Oh yeah, and it's also really part of the duchy of Burgundy.