"Arthur Figgis" wrote in message
o.uk...
Mizter T wrote:

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.

But try convincing many Londoners that the area code is 020, not 020x :-)

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

So, have 0171 and 0181 bitten the dust?

DW down under

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message
, at
03:37:24 on Sun, 19 Jul 2009, John B remarked:
I utterly hate American-designed websites which
insist on you putting a county in the address field...

The one I encountered this morning is very likely to be UK-designed
website. We have ignorant developers here too
--
Roland Perry

I've never enountered a US site demanding "County". City, State (from
drop-down list) and ZIP is the usual form.

DW down under

On Jul 19, 11:37*am, John B wrote:

On Jul 19, 11:07*am, Mizter T wrote:

On Jul 19, 7:43*am, Martin Edwards wrote:

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.

On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 02:55:10 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:

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.


Wales was England's first colony.

"Mizter T" wrote

Also, like it or not, lots of people in the fringes of London in some
areas - e.g. parts of the London Borough of Bromley are a good example
- would give their address as Kent, and would furthermore identify
with Kent (and also as soft of being part of Kent), at least in a
number of ways - whilst also quite possibly identifying with London as
well. Some on the edges would likely recoil as being labelled
Londoners.

There is also a good practical reason for including the unnecessary county
in a postal address. Letters addressed to
CHISLEHURST
BR7 5xx
have not infrequently arrived late with a spurious Bristol postmark. This
does't seem to happen when they are addressed
CHISLEHURST Kent
BR7 5xx

There are also cases where two post towns in different parts of the country
share a name (Ashford, Richmond, etc). While the correct postcode does
differentiate, inclusion of the county name does reduce the risk of
misrouting.

Coming back on topic, National Rail, and BR before it, have over the years
identified the Ashford station between Feltham and Staines as Ashford
(Surrey) or Ashford (Middlesex), apparently switching backwards and forwards
between the two every few years. On the same line, St Margarets has switched
between (Middlesex) and (Greater London), while Rainham (Essex) seems to
have remained as such, although it is in Greater London,

Peter

In uk.railway Mizter T twisted the electrons to say:
Of course even if
one omits the post town then it'll get through, especially if one is
posting from within that post town - e.g. London.)

It's amazing what parts of the address can be omitted, and still have the
item reach the destination! My personal favourite was the letter which
had (something like) the following on it :-

Mr & Mrs Smith
The house with the white(?) door opposite the church
$VILLAGE
Incorrect, albeit not massively, postcode ...
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

"David Hansen" wrote

An example of a correct (fictional) address is

TFR
12 Main Street
Edinburgh
EH0 0EH

Incorrect (sorry). The Royal Mail give seven mistakes which can make a
postal address incorrect, of which one is 'Do not put the Post town in lower
case.'

The others a
Do not indent the address
Do not omit the name or building number
Do not punctuate
Do not use the words 'near' or 'by' (I suppose you have to if you are
sending something to Stoke by Clare or Stoke-by-Nayland)
Do not leave the Postcode incomplete
Do not underline or write anything beneath the Postcode.

Peter

In message
, at
07:33:45 on Sun, 19 Jul 2009, MIG
remarked:
Who sets your Council Tax is rather more real, in my opinion.

That's the Treasury, by various levers they can pull which in effect
pretty much determine what the local tax will be. That's a long term
disappointment, and not exactly how the system was supposed to work.

Local Income Tax, if it ever gets implemented, will inevitably suffer
the same problem.
--
Roland Perry

Alistair Gunn wrote:

It's amazing what parts of the address can be omitted, and still have
the item reach the destination! My personal favourite was the letter
which had (something like) the following on it :-

Mr & Mrs Smith
The house with the white(?) door opposite the church
$VILLAGE
Incorrect, albeit not massively, postcode ...

It's obviously here somewhere...
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&...,0.109177&z=14

On Jul 19, 2:53*pm, John B wrote:

On Jul 19, 2:03*pm, Mizter T wrote:

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.

You understand wrong - yes, there is a London postal district. It
consists of all postcodes that begin NW, N, E, SE and SW.

All other postcodes, e.g. BR (Bromley), CR (Croydon), IG (Ilford) are
emphatically *not* part of the London postal district.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_postal_district

Aha, thanks.

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.

Eh?

The fact that one of many delivery services organises its network in a
particular way, even if it's (for the time being) the biggest, doesn't
define government or geographical boundaries.

OK, though quite a few 'official things' depend upon the Royal Mail's
way of doing business. What's more, delivery companies that have no
interface with the Royal Mail at all still rely on the Royal Mail's
system - it's the de-facto official way of addressing things, even if
it isn't 'officially official'! (Thankfully I don't think we're going
to see DHL et al create a new system that requires people to have a
new 'DHL address'!)


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

No - the official Royal Mail requirement to include postal counties
continued past the creation of Greater London. I'll try and find the
date when the requirement was dropped.

Yes, I was aware of that - I expressed it badly above. First they
stopped being in Kent, then a delivery company stopped forcing people
to write their location incorrectly. Now neither of those things
happens, although as you've mentioned upthread people are allowed to
write their location incorrectly if they choose.

But again, what makes it "incorrect"? The Royal Mail has "postally
required" information, but they don't decree addresses that include
extra "postally not required" information to be incorrect.

On the back of my driving licence's paper counterpart is the following
text:
"The address which appears on your licence is the Post Office
preferred format and may not be identical to the address given on your
application form."

(Let's read "Post Office" as being "Royal Mail" - not least because
the Royal Mail used to be a component part of the "Post Office" - a
government corporation - before becoming the absurd Consignia, then
changed again to "Royal Mail Group". Actually it's even more complex
than that but I digress!)

The point is that it speaks of a "preferred format", as opposed to a
"correct format".

And my overall point is that Royal Mail do not consider the inclusion
of postal counties, nor of other information such as a name of the
locality, to be incorrect - people who use it are therefore not
writing their location incorrectly, as you state.

I might well be being very anally retentive on this point, but I'm
actually pointing out that those who insist that there's a correct and
incorrect way of doing things are perhaps actually the ones who're
being anally retentive. (That's meant in the nicest possible way!)
People are free to include this extra information as part of their (or
anyone elses) address without falling foul of any rule.

If anyone wishes to contend otherwise, I'd again kindly ask them to
please provide references or citations from Royal Mail that back up
that point of view. That'll be a struggle, because they don't exist!


Also, like it or not, lots of people in the fringes of London in some
areas - e.g. parts of the London Borough of Bromley are a good example
- would give their address as Kent, and would furthermore identify
with Kent (and also as soft of being part of Kent), at least in a
number of ways - whilst also quite possibly identifying with London as
well. Some on the edges would likely recoil as being labelled
Londoners.

As I said, like it or not. I'm sure you won't, but identity is a multi-
layered, amorphous thing, not something decreed by John Band.

To some extent... but location is clearly decreed by official
boundaries. People who live in Bromley can identify as Kentish and not
Londoners if they like - but their geographical location is London.

No - if you're subscribing to that argument, then you can say their
geographical location is "Greater London" by all means, but there's
nothing official that says they're in "London" full stop. Yes, they
might live in a "London Borough", but those are defined as being part
of "Greater London" as opposed to just London. All references to the
"Mayor of London" or "London Assembly" are either stylistic, or if
they are referred to as such in law (not sure if they are) then
they'll be prefixed by a mention in the Act's definitions section as
referring to "Greater London". AFAICS from the point of view of
statutory law there is no such place as "London" full stop.

I did once hear that Maggie Thatcher so detested the phrase "Greater
London" that she insisted that new laws referred to "London", but
they'd have to carry the explanation in the definitions as to what
this "London" was (which was "Greater London").

And you're more than welcome to argue that Downe is geographically
part of London if you wish! (I wouldn't argue to say it was part of
Kent, I would merely provide a bit more information as to its location
- 'fringes of London' or somesuch.)

My point is that there's no definitive geographic definition of
"London" as such.


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 E4 postcode is part of the London postal district. "Greater
London" has absolutely *no meaning* whatsoever in a postal address
sense - cast-iron fact.

As above, I didn't realise the entity 'London postal district' still
existed - I thought that N or E was a postal district, as is usually
the case for the initial letters of a postcode (e.g. GU or PO).
Nonetheless, it is clearly true that addresses within the LPD are
primarily within Greater London.

Undoubtedly.


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.

AFAICS it's not officially called the "TfL zonal area" (not least
because logically that would include zones 7-9, which aren't
recognised by the TOCs as such as they're more of a unilateral
creation by TfL.) FWIW, the London Connections map refers to the
"London Fare Zones".

...in its NR variant, although not in its TfL variant...!
www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/lon_con.pdf

Yes... that refers to both "Travelcard zones" in the legend - which
states that stations beyond zone 9 are "Stations outside the zones",
and to the "TfL zonal area" in the the note about Watford Junction -
there's no suggestion on this map about zones 7-9 being in any way
different! Pity the poor passenger expecting these things to make
sense!

(For the record the note about Watford Jn reads as follows: "Watford
Junction is outside Transport for London zonal area. Special fares
apply.").


And I've just looked up the PDF of the now out-of-date National Fares
Manual 98, section A to be precise, which refers to the "London Fares
Zones area" on page A4 (PDF page 6) - it's still online he
http://www.atoc.org/retail/_download...8_Common_A.pdf

Obviously the 'proper' zones 1-6 firmly have their origins in the
boundaries of Greater London.

Yup, plus simplifications and subsidies from neighbouring counties
AIUI.

Essex County Council being the supposed source of subsidy that enables
Epping to be in zone 6. I must try and root out some official
documentation about this issue - I'd be interested to know they still
cough up for this.

What I've read beforehand is that neither Herfordshire CC nor any of
the Buckinghamshire local authorities (Bucks CC having been abolished
in favour of unitary authorities) subsidise the Met line service, but
I;ve no idea if that's true. Hertfordshire CC are of course an
integral part of the Croxley link proposal.


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)?

Perhaps I've overstretched myself here... hmm! OK...

The Port of London Authority has, er, authority over the whole Port of
London, which consists of the tidal Thames from Teddington in the west
all the way out to the Thames estuary in the east - see:
http://www.pla.co.uk/display_fixedpa...d/178/site/pla

Yes, like it.

The London area of British Waterways stretches out to Bishop's
Stortford, Hertford and Slough.

Again, good.

I was going to say that there's plenty of references to a "London"
that isn't coterminous with Greater London in the broadcasting world -
however I've just checked the licenses for Carlton and LWT, the two
regional licensees for the Channel 3 service that cover London and
beyond, and there's no reference to "London" in the licenses apart
from where there's the list of transmitters. The BBC provide regional
television and radio services for a wide area that stretches beyond
Greater London that carry the name "BBC London", so one could argue
that's quasi-official. Of course broadcasting isn't really a very good
exemplar, as radio waves tend not to obey official boundaries!

Hehe. Is BBC TV 'BBC London'? I thought it was overall southeast, but
it's so long since I watched local BBC news I've no idea.

You watch even less television than I do then! BBC television used to
cover London as part of the South East region (perhaps officially
called "London & South East", I dunno), but in 2001 this was split -
London became a region in its own right, whilst the South East region
swallowed a transmitter from the South region and started a new
regional television news service that comes I think from Tunbridge
Wells.

There's more on wonkypedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_London
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_South_East


NATS has a "London Area Control" and "London Terminal Control", both
of which extend well beyond Greater London (OK, I'm stretching things
just a bit!). And then the government officially defines the "London
airports" as being Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted - only one of which
is inside Greater London (and until 1994, some of it wasn't in Greater
London) - though of course they're referring to airports that serve
London rather than airports that are within London.

The Church of England's Diocese of London only covers part of Greater
London (and includes at least one bit outside of Greater London,
Spelthorne), and doesn't stretch south of the river at all. Meanwhile
the Dioceses of Rochester, Southwark, Guildford, St Albans and
Chelmsford cover other areas in Greater London. Not official, you
might say? Well, the CoE has a number of unique responsibilities that
other churches don't have (AIUI basically the result of it being the
"established church")- e.g. marrying anyone at their parish church,
likewise providing funerals for those within the parish.

Interesting - I'm surprised it doesn't match up slightly better with
the county, I suppose that's the thing about Really Really Old
boundaries..

Aha, but what "county" are you referring to? Greater London, whilst
bearing many similarities to a metropolitan county, is emphatically
not one - it's a kind of special case, and as such always referred to
by name in statute law.

The old County of London is of course what we now refer to as "inner
London" (and LB Newham is notably not part of it, as it was
essentially formed of the county boroughs of East and West Ham). The
County of London lived on in some senses as a result of the ILEA, a
sort-of part of the GLC.


Erm... what else... I think the NHS used to define London in different
ways, but things have changed on that front (reflecting the general,
gradual move towards administering things in line with the Greater
London boundaries).

Of course sporting organisations define London in a great many
different ways - the very obvious example being cricket. One could I
suppose put forward an argument that some of these sporting bodies are
quasi-official, not least because the courts generally respect the
broad concept that they have authority over their respective sports.

Yes, it's a shame that cricket hasn't reorganised to match revised
county boundaries, if only for the reaction this would provoke among
Yorkshiremen g

That would have provoked the start of a second English Civil War!


Lastly, the really obvious point that I didn't make earlier is that
"London Underground" provides services to places outside of Greater
London (and it isn't underground in these places either!).

Good point. There aren't any underground bits of Underground outside
London, are there? Maybe some of LHR would have counted pre-1984...

Erm... well, I suppose the Central line goes underneath the M11!

(p.s. I think the realignment of boundaries around Heathrow happened
in 19*9*4.)