d wrote:

Watford is not in Greater London and will only become so in the event of
future legislation?

You're missing the point. As a shorthand way of stating what is and isn't
in london I said any built up area within the M25. If some of those places
arn't technically within what is legally london who cares.

The people in those places for one. And the M25's route was not intended to
be the definitive guide to what is and isn't London (some parts are outside
it) - indeed the main reason it's shaped the way it is in the north west is
precisely because of where Watford is and pre-existing roads and schemes.

Croydon probably isn't either

No it's been the core of the London Borough of the same name since 1965.
It's definitely within London.
--
My blog: http://adf.ly/4hi4c

On 04/09/2012 09:23, d wrote:
On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 07:49:41 +0100
Martin Edwards wrote:
The jurisdictional boundary is between South Oxhey and Hatch End.

And what?

B2003


Watford is not in Greater London and will only become so in the event of
future legislation?

You're missing the point. As a shorthand way of stating what is and isn't
in london I said any built up area within the M25. If some of those places
arn't technically within what is legally london who cares. Croydon probably
isn't either but I don't think many would deny that these days its simply a
south london suburb rather than a seperate town , the same as Barnet.

B2003

Croydon and Barnet are London boroughs, Watford is not. No amount of
bellowing the same lie will make it so.

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

On 05/09/2012 00:36, Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:
d wrote:

Watford is not in Greater London and will only become so in the event of
future legislation?

You're missing the point. As a shorthand way of stating what is and isn't
in london I said any built up area within the M25. If some of those places
arn't technically within what is legally london who cares.

The people in those places for one. And the M25's route was not intended to
be the definitive guide to what is and isn't London (some parts are outside
it) - indeed the main reason it's shaped the way it is in the north west is
precisely because of where Watford is and pre-existing roads and schemes.

The M25 is the shape it is because it forms the sign of the evil eye!

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 07:49:11 +0100
Martin Edwards wrote:
You're missing the point. As a shorthand way of stating what is and isn't
in london I said any built up area within the M25. If some of those places
arn't technically within what is legally london who cares. Croydon probably
isn't either but I don't think many would deny that these days its simply a
south london suburb rather than a seperate town , the same as Barnet.

B2003

Croydon and Barnet are London boroughs, Watford is not. No amount of
bellowing the same lie will make it so.

What lie? Both croydon and barnet used to be independent towns. Now they're
part of london. Watford is still officially an independent town but its
essentially part of london now.

B2003

On Wed, 5 Sep 2012 00:36:20 +0100
"Tim Roll-Pickering" wrote:
wrote:

Watford is not in Greater London and will only become so in the event of
future legislation?

You're missing the point. As a shorthand way of stating what is and isn't
in london I said any built up area within the M25. If some of those places
arn't technically within what is legally london who cares.

The people in those places for one. And the M25's route was not intended to

Right, because watford is the north london equivalent of Esher. Not.
I doubt the residents give a **** one way or the other.

be the definitive guide to what is and isn't London (some parts are outside

I never said it was, I just said it was a useful shorthand. Is it idiot week
on here or something? Do I need to write in single syllable words perhaps
in capitals so you muppets can understand my point?

B2003

On Sep 5, 10:07*am, wrote:
On Wed, 5 Sep 2012 00:36:20 +0100

"Tim Roll-Pickering" wrote:
wrote:

Watford is not in Greater London and will only become so in the event of
future legislation?

You're missing the point. As a shorthand way of stating what is and isn't
in london I said any built up area within the M25. If some of those places
arn't technically within what is legally london who cares.

The people in those places for one. And the M25's route was not intended to

Right, because watford is the north london equivalent of Esher. Not.
I doubt the residents give a **** one way or the other.

be the definitive guide to what is and isn't London (some parts are outside

I never said it was, I just said it was a useful shorthand. Is it idiot week
on here or something? Do I need to write in single syllable words perhaps
in capitals so you muppets can understand my point?

B2003

Come on Boltar, you should know by now that "intelligent left winger"
is an oxy moron.

On Wed, 5 Sep 2012 03:02:39 -0700 (PDT)
77002 wrote:
I never said it was, I just said it was a useful shorthand. Is it idiot w=
eek
on here or something? Do I need to write in single syllable words perhaps
in capitals so you muppets can understand my point?

B2003

Come on Boltar, you should know by now that "intelligent left winger"
is an oxy moron.

Well I wouldn't argue with that. But this has more to do with them just not
bloody well reading what I wrote. I never said the M25 was an official
designation of london, just a convenient one given that all of london is
inside it.

B2003

In article ,
(Martin Edwards) wrote:

On 04/09/2012 09:23, d wrote:
On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 07:49:41 +0100
Martin Edwards wrote:
The jurisdictional boundary is between South Oxhey and Hatch End.

And what?

Watford is not in Greater London and will only become so in the event
of future legislation?

You're missing the point. As a shorthand way of stating what is and
isn't in london I said any built up area within the M25. If some of
those places arn't technically within what is legally london who cares.
Croydon probably isn't either but I don't think many would deny that
these days its simply a south london suburb rather than a seperate town,
the same as Barnet.

Croydon and Barnet are London boroughs, Watford is not. No amount of
bellowing the same lie will make it so.

In fact the Herbert Royal Commission from 1957 to 1960 considered a review
area including Watford (as well as Dartford and Epsom amongst others). The
report that led to the London Government Act 1963 did not propose the
inclusion of Watford in Greater London, however.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Sep 5, 12:08*pm, wrote:
In article ,





(Martin Edwards) wrote:
On 04/09/2012 09:23, wrote:
On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 07:49:41 +0100
Martin Edwards wrote:
The jurisdictional boundary is between South Oxhey and Hatch End.

And what?

Watford is not in Greater London and will only become so in the event
of future legislation?

You're missing the point. As a shorthand way of stating what is and
isn't in london I said any built up area within the M25. If some of
those places arn't technically within what is legally london who cares.
Croydon probably isn't either but I don't think many would deny that
these days its simply a south london suburb rather than a seperate town,
the same as Barnet.

Croydon and Barnet are London boroughs, Watford is not. *No amount of
bellowing the same lie will make it so.

In fact the Herbert Royal Commission from 1957 to 1960 considered a review
area including Watford (as well as Dartford and Epsom amongst others). The
report that led to the London Government Act 1963 did not propose the
inclusion of Watford in Greater London, however.

I would have liked to have seen the opposite, a smaller Metropolitan
Council north of the Thames. Southwark would be a separate
municipality within Surrey. If any company disliked the bylaws and
business rates in the one, they would simply move to the other.

77002 wrote:
On Sep 5, 12:08 pm, wrote:
In article ,





(Martin Edwards) wrote:
On 04/09/2012 09:23, wrote:
On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 07:49:41 +0100
Martin Edwards wrote:
The jurisdictional boundary is between South Oxhey and Hatch End.

And what?

Watford is not in Greater London and will only become so in the event
of future legislation?

You're missing the point. As a shorthand way of stating what is and
isn't in london I said any built up area within the M25. If some of
those places arn't technically within what is legally london who cares.
Croydon probably isn't either but I don't think many would deny that
these days its simply a south london suburb rather than a seperate town,
the same as Barnet.

Croydon and Barnet are London boroughs, Watford is not. No amount of
bellowing the same lie will make it so.

In fact the Herbert Royal Commission from 1957 to 1960 considered a review
area including Watford (as well as Dartford and Epsom amongst others). The
report that led to the London Government Act 1963 did not propose the
inclusion of Watford in Greater London, however.

I would have liked to have seen the opposite, a smaller Metropolitan
Council north of the Thames. Southwark would be a separate
municipality within Surrey. If any company disliked the bylaws and
business rates in the one, they would simply move to the other.

What makes you think the business rates would be any different in another
Council?