|
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 07:39:50 on Fri, 31 Aug 2012, Martin Edwards remarked: One of the reasons that developers do not like to have to use brownfield sites is the cost of decontaminating land that has been used for industry. Also setting up electricity and water supply and sewers. You have to do that on greenfield sites too. It's a lot easier to build on a green field site and usually considerably cheaper. Add the lower construction costs to the much lower cost of buying agricultural land on the outskirts of towns and cities compared with land values in and near town centres and there is a clear incentive to develop green field sites which the housebuilders already own compared with brown field sites which they don't. Experience shows that by far the best way to facilitate development of brown field sites is for the public sector to pay for site clearance and remediation which, by definition, contains many unknowns and risks, then sell the site at cost to developers. This has worked spectacularly well in such places London, Liverpool and Glasgow docklands, the former Royal Dockyard at Chatham and the area around the Black Country Spine Road in the West Midlands. |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
Martin Edwards wrote:
Where I lived as a small child was well outside what people generally recognised as London. It is now well inside what people generally recognise as London. Even the county has been absorbed into London. Probably the most accurate definition today would be any built up area within the M25. Cue howls of protest from the likes of Epsom and Watford... Just so, and even places like Bushey which are in Herts but in the Met Police area. Wasn't the MPA realigned to the Greater London boundary in 2000? Epsom was certainly transferred to Surrey Police around then. -- My blog: http://adf.ly/4hi4c |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
Peter Campbell Smith wrote:
Where I lived as a small child was well outside what people generally recognised as London. It is now well inside what people generally recognise as London. Even the county has been absorbed into London. Probably the most accurate definition today would be any built up area within the M25. Cue howls of protest from the likes of Epsom and Watford... Maybe. There is a campaign in Epsom to get Epsom Station included in Zone 6 - as Epsom Downs and Tattenham Corner already are - and amongst the older generation there is a certain envy of the benefits of Freedom Passes. If inclusion in London were the solution, I think there would be significant support. However there could also be fierce opposition. I don't have the council tax rates for Epsom & Ewell and neighbouring boroughs to hand but ISTR past discussion on this group suggesting that further down the road those settlements that stayed in (what is now) Tandridge, Surrey pay more tax than neighbours absorbed into Croydon, London. It would of course increase the Con/Lab ratio in London, which might displease those of the Boris-free party. That's not a given by any means. Epsom and Ewell is a very unusual case in local government as it's dominated by a Residents' Association who've been running things since at least the 1930s. Local government voting patterns bear limited relation to national ones and whilst some of the RA may be ideologically small-c conservatives there's no love lost whatsoever between them and the local Conservatives. The RA also hold nearly all the Epsom & Ewell seats on Surrey County Council. If the borough were added and the RA were to contest the GLA elections, as their Havering counterparts do, it would not bring many Conservative votes to the cause. -- My blog: http://adf.ly/4hi4c |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
Graeme Wall wrote in
: On 31/08/2012 12:16, Graeme Wall wrote: Is the Borough of Epsom and Ewell the only non-London council area wholly within the M25? Hard to find a map that would show that. Ashford (no, the other one) looks like a contender. Thanks for the map info. Ashford, aka Spelthorne, seems to have a reservoir outside the M25 and Elmbridge has a few bits including the new Downside M25 service area. So far as I can see nothing other than Epsom and Ewell of district or unitary authority status is wholly inside. Peter -- || Peter CS ~ Epsom ~ UK | pjcs02 [at] gmail.com | |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
"Tim Roll-Pickering" wrote in
: Peter Campbell Smith wrote: Where I lived as a small child was well outside what people generally recognised as London. It is now well inside what people generally recognise as London. Even the county has been absorbed into London. Probably the most accurate definition today would be any built up area within the M25. Cue howls of protest from the likes of Epsom and Watford... Maybe. There is a campaign in Epsom to get Epsom Station included in Zone 6 - as Epsom Downs and Tattenham Corner already are - and amongst the older generation there is a certain envy of the benefits of Freedom Passes. If inclusion in London were the solution, I think there would be significant support. However there could also be fierce opposition. I don't have the council tax rates for Epsom & Ewell and neighbouring boroughs to hand but ISTR past discussion on this group suggesting that further down the road those settlements that stayed in (what is now) Tandridge, Surrey pay more tax than neighbours absorbed into Croydon, London. It would of course increase the Con/Lab ratio in London, which might displease those of the Boris-free party. That's not a given by any means. Epsom and Ewell is a very unusual case in local government as it's dominated by a Residents' Association who've been running things since at least the 1930s. Local government voting patterns bear limited relation to national ones and whilst some of the RA may be ideologically small-c conservatives there's no love lost whatsoever between them and the local Conservatives. The RA also hold nearly all the Epsom & Ewell seats on Surrey County Council. If the borough were added and the RA were to contest the GLA elections, as their Havering counterparts do, it would not bring many Conservative votes to the cause. Well ... at the last parliamentary election the Tories got 56%, the Lib Dems 26% and Labour 12%. I don't think that will give much succour to Ken's successor. Granted the RA might get a few seats in the GLA. Council tax in E&E is higher than in neighbouring Sutton*, yet Sutton has far superior schools, bus services and social services (some of which are of course county functions in Surrey but not in London). Granted, Kingston is more expensive. Peter * band D for the current year: E&E £1520, Sutton £1447, Kingston £1683 (including police, county, GLA etc). -- || Peter CS ~ Epsom ~ UK | pjcs02 [at] gmail.com | |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
"Bruce" wrote in message ... It's a lot easier to build on a green field site and usually considerably cheaper. Add the lower construction costs to the much lower cost of buying agricultural land on the outskirts of towns and cities compared with land values in and near town centres and there is a clear incentive to develop green field sites which the housebuilders already own compared with brown field sites which they don't. Experience shows that by far the best way to facilitate development of brown field sites is for the public sector to pay for site clearance and remediation The best way is to slap land valuation taxation on all land. The landowners soon get it profitable. And no public expense to do so. |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
wrote in message ... On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 17:55:14 +0100 "News" wrote: I fallow field has people on it? Boy you are slow. If people own the land snip total senile drivel Read: "Oh dear, snip total senile drivel |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
wrote in message ... On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 18:11:08 +0100 "News" wrote: wrote: On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 16:42:36 +0100 Optimist wrote: Those who think that fields can just be built on ad lib should ask themselves where the food is to come from. We cannot I think in the minds of these people it comes from some magic food machine run by pixies So senile. Sad When So senile. Sad |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
On 31/08/2012 09:08, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 07:39:50 on Fri, 31 Aug 2012, Martin Edwards remarked: One of the reasons that developers do not like to have to use brownfield sites is the cost of decontaminating land that has been used for industry. Also setting up electricity and water supply and sewers. You have to do that on greenfield sites too. True, but starting from scratch is probably easier. -- Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
On 31/08/2012 22:05, News wrote:
"Bruce" wrote in message ... It's a lot easier to build on a green field site and usually considerably cheaper. Add the lower construction costs to the much lower cost of buying agricultural land on the outskirts of towns and cities compared with land values in and near town centres and there is a clear incentive to develop green field sites which the housebuilders already own compared with brown field sites which they don't. Experience shows that by far the best way to facilitate development of brown field sites is for the public sector to pay for site clearance and remediation The best way is to slap land valuation taxation on all land. The landowners soon get it profitable. And no public expense to do so. But will the tax on my garden be higher than my present council tax? -- Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
On 31/08/2012 10:14, News wrote:
Martin Edwards wrote: On 30/08/2012 10:40, News wrote: d wrote: If the previous government hadn't deliberaly flung the doors open to mass immigration we wouldn't now be having to cope with housing an extra 2 million people. If there was any justice in the world Tony Blair would be forced to rent out the rooms in his mansions. Or scrap the Stalinist Town & Country Planning act. Thatcher reinforced this act. Why? To keep house price high to appeal to owner/occupiers to gain votes, while the country as whole suffered. The state of the nation was throw out of the window. The knock-on was that debt after debt was poured into land which resulted in the Credit Crunch - a collapse. Thatcher was a fan of Uncle Joe? I don't think so. Get the point...."the Stalinist Town & Country Planning act. Thatcher reinforced this act." Read it again. So it was passed by Stalin and reinforced by Thatcher? When did Stalin rule the UK? -- Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
On 31/08/2012 09:16, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 31/08/2012 07:45, Martin Edwards wrote: On 30/08/2012 10:29, Graeme Wall wrote: On 30/08/2012 08:57, Optimist wrote: On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 08:00:04 +0100, Roland wrote: In , at 07:37:29 on Thu, 30 Aug 2012, Martin remarked: Unless the UK indulges in another round of building "new towns", the national housing shortage is actually only solvable at the local level. In other words build homes where the people and jobs are, or move the people and jobs. Unfortunately the policy for most of the country seems to be to build new estates on largely brownfield and rural sites, in places where they get the least objection. Correlating it with workplaces is the last thing on the agenda. An added irony is that they are often paraded as "eco" towns, when the residents would all need cars to get to jobs. The aim of eco-towns is to get car journeys down to 50% of all trips. I'm not sure if that counts very local trips, but they should be provided with enhanced public transport in order to qualify for the name. Policy should be to get the hundreds of thousands of empty homes back into use, rather than consuming more countryside. Very laudable in theory. In practice many of those empty properties are in areas no one wants to live. Outer city estates, yes, but many are in inner city areas where there is a market. Define many. A lot. Next? -- Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
On 31/08/2012 09:17, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 31/08/2012 07:57, Martin Edwards wrote: On 30/08/2012 13:27, Graeme Wall wrote: On 30/08/2012 12:58, wrote: On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 12:36:58 +0100, "Tim Roll-Pickering" wrote: Graeme Wall wrote: Cities have a natural footprint limit. The generally accepted limit is that if it takes over an hour to travel from one side to the other its expansion naturally tails off. Explain supercities then. London, New York, Tokyo might give you a clue. Keep looking. Try getting across any of those in an hour. London developed largely by expansion of its sattellite towns and villages in the commuter belt to the point that they fused into one another before the limits of the greenbelt were set, Assembly"). The argument about whether the outer London zones are "London" usually boils down to the Royal Mail policies, but the strong local identity in at least some of the suburbs and the history of absorption rather than straight on expansion makes it a more open question. Red buses London, Green Buses Country seemed a fairly simple way. As long as they were RTs. Most of the RTs in Watford were green, as I remember, and I am fairly sure it is a town. But, at that time, not London. Nor now. -- Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
On 31/08/2012 10:55, d wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 08:00:03 +0100 Martin Edwards wrote: On 30/08/2012 14:25, d wrote: On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 14:14:06 +0100 "Tim Roll-Pickering" wrote: d wrote: Where I lived as a small child was well outside what people generally recognised as London. It is now well inside what people generally recognise as London. Even the county has been absorbed into London. Probably the most accurate definition today would be any built up area within the M25. Cue howls of protest from the likes of Epsom and Watford... Tough :o) Apart from about 3 fields the built up part of watford is contiguous all the way to central london. B2003 Crap, there is farmland on both London Road and Oxhey Lane. There's something called google maps - try using it. If you do you'll see that as I said , aprt from a few fields watford is contiguous with central london by way of south oxhey , hatch end and harrow. B2003 The jurisdictional boundary is between South Oxhey and Hatch End. -- Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
On 31/08/2012 13:53, Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:
Martin Edwards wrote: Where I lived as a small child was well outside what people generally recognised as London. It is now well inside what people generally recognise as London. Even the county has been absorbed into London. Probably the most accurate definition today would be any built up area within the M25. Cue howls of protest from the likes of Epsom and Watford... Just so, and even places like Bushey which are in Herts but in the Met Police area. Wasn't the MPA realigned to the Greater London boundary in 2000? Epsom was certainly transferred to Surrey Police around then. Possibly. Thanks for the update. -- Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
On 31/08/2012 10:17, News wrote:
Martin Edwards wrote: Viz the Northern belief that the whole population from Milton Keynes to Brighton are cockneys. They are. They all say "Fink" instead of think. "Fireen" instead of thirteen. Then they bust out with songs like "Boiled Beef and Carrots". This rather makes my point, I think. -- Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
On 31/08/2012 10:25, News wrote:
Martin Edwards wrote: Social engineering. Hitler did that. It is best to have a self controlling economic system - Geonomics. Like in the Middle Ages, when the population was controlled by hunger, disease and hanging. You are very confused. No, only a little. -- Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
"Peter Campbell Smith" wrote Thanks for the map info. Ashford, aka Spelthorne, seems to have a reservoir outside the M25 and Elmbridge has a few bits including the new Downside M25 service area. So far as I can see nothing other than Epsom and Ewell of district or unitary authority status is wholly inside. Which London boroughs have bits outside the M25? Havering seems to, but are there others? Peter |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
To get to the other side of the Chilterns?
|
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
"Martin Edwards" wrote in message ... On 31/08/2012 22:05, News wrote: "Bruce" wrote in message ... It's a lot easier to build on a green field site and usually considerably cheaper. Add the lower construction costs to the much lower cost of buying agricultural land on the outskirts of towns and cities compared with land values in and near town centres and there is a clear incentive to develop green field sites which the housebuilders already own compared with brown field sites which they don't. Experience shows that by far the best way to facilitate development of brown field sites is for the public sector to pay for site clearance and remediation The best way is to slap land valuation taxation on all land. The landowners soon get it profitable. And no public expense to do so. But will the tax on my garden be higher than my present council tax? Land Valuation Taxation (LVT) is on the VALUE of the land, all the land not just the garden. It does not tax the capital, the building. In its purest form there will be no Income, Sales, Inheritance tax or tax in interest. Calculations have been done that show a man on £40K per ann as an owner/occupier will be approx, £6.5 to £7K per ann overall. As time goes on the revenue HMG needs will be less as more enterprise is encouraged and economic parasites eliminated. So, the £7K saved will increase. The Welfare state will diminish as people gain control of their lives pushing HMG into the background. Speculation on land is near eliminated - so no land fueled boom and busts - as the 1929 & 2008 world-wide crashes were. http://www.landvaluetax.org/what-is-lvt/ LVT |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
... In message , at 09:12:12 on Fri, 31 Aug 2012, Graeme Wall remarked: England and France also share a border. Can't see both sides building right up to the edge of it though. Didn't someone build a rail tunnel up to the border, from both sides? Actually IIRC the tunnel took the border with it. "Where would the border be?" "What's wrong with where it is at the moment?" "The three mile limit... Who would control the bit in the middle?" -- My blog: http://adf.ly/4hi4c |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
In message , at 19:39:41 on Sat, 1 Sep
2012, Tim Roll-Pickering remarked: England and France also share a border. Can't see both sides building right up to the edge of it though. Didn't someone build a rail tunnel up to the border, from both sides? Actually IIRC the tunnel took the border with it. "Where would the border be?" "What's wrong with where it is at the moment?" "The three mile limit... Who would control the bit in the middle?" In that case, unless the remark was made about the Channel Tunnel, I'm not sure how France and England can share a border given the three mile limit. -- Roland Perry |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
In that case, unless the remark was made about the Channel Tunnel, I'm not
sure how France and England can share a border given the three mile limit. Due to the rise in off-shore resources, that's been changed? The original three miles was based on the range of cannon shot however Territorial waters, or a territorial sea, as defined by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, is a belt of coastal waters extending at most 12 nautical miles (22 km; 14 mi) from the baseline (usually the mean low-water mark) of a coastal state. An exclusive economic zone extends from the outer limit of the territorial sea to a maximum of 200 nautical miles (370.4 km) from the territorial sea baseline, thus it includes the contiguous zone. Thanks to Wiki. -- Cheers. Roger Traviss Photos of the late HO scale GER: - http://www.greateasternrailway.com For more photos not in the above album and kitbashes etc..:- http://s94.photobucket.com/albums/l9...Great_Eastern/ |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
On 01/09/2012 10:41, News wrote:
"Martin Edwards" wrote in message ... On 31/08/2012 22:05, News wrote: "Bruce" wrote in message ... It's a lot easier to build on a green field site and usually considerably cheaper. Add the lower construction costs to the much lower cost of buying agricultural land on the outskirts of towns and cities compared with land values in and near town centres and there is a clear incentive to develop green field sites which the housebuilders already own compared with brown field sites which they don't. Experience shows that by far the best way to facilitate development of brown field sites is for the public sector to pay for site clearance and remediation The best way is to slap land valuation taxation on all land. The landowners soon get it profitable. And no public expense to do so. But will the tax on my garden be higher than my present council tax? Land Valuation Taxation (LVT) is on the VALUE of the land, all the land not just the garden. It does not tax the capital, the building. In its purest form there will be no Income, Sales, Inheritance tax or tax in interest. Calculations have been done that show a man on £40K per ann as an owner/occupier will be approx, £6.5 to £7K per ann overall. As time goes on the revenue HMG needs will be less as more enterprise is encouraged and economic parasites eliminated. So, the £7K saved will increase. The Welfare state will diminish as people gain control of their lives pushing HMG into the background. Speculation on land is near eliminated - so no land fueled boom and busts - as the 1929 & 2008 world-wide crashes were. http://www.landvaluetax.org/what-is-lvt/ LVT I live on a pension of about £10k. I am not complaining, but I would like an answer to my question. -- Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
On 01/09/2012 09:06, Optimist wrote:
To get to the other side of the Chilterns? I no longer live in the Southeast, but I will try to give an answer if you make it clear what you are asking. -- Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
On Sat, 01 Sep 2012 07:56:37 +0100
Martin Edwards wrote: There's something called google maps - try using it. If you do you'll see that as I said , aprt from a few fields watford is contiguous with central london by way of south oxhey , hatch end and harrow. B2003 The jurisdictional boundary is between South Oxhey and Hatch End. And what? B2003 |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
On Sat, 01 Sep 2012 07:52:31 +0100
Martin Edwards wrote: Oh not this fatuous old argument again. There were plenty of british workmen before the flood gates were opened but guess what - a lot of them had families to pay for and didn't fancy living 6 to a flat. If you're some 20 something single male sharing rent with a lot of mates of course you can undercut the indigenous competition. B2003 So the state can pay for their families. I would have thought that someone of your political inclination would be against that. The three Nice tangent to head off on. If the state has to pay for their families thats because the state caused this mess in the first place. Polish and one Russian family on my suburban street seem to be able to live on the husbands' wages. Are they blue collar? Meanwhile I had 4 romanian guys living next door a while back running a gardening busines, all sharing the rent and charging low prices because they were single and didn't have many expenses. B2003 |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
|
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
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 |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
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 |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
|
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
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 |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
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 |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
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 |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
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. |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
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 |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
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 |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
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. |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
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? |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:00 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk