On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 13:07:51 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 12:14:33 on
Fri, 22 Jan 2016, Recliner remarked:
One route NOT included in yesterday's announced scheme is Thameslink.

The Evening Standard did.

"The first route to come under the next Mayor's control will be
Southeastern in 2018, followed by Southern, Thameslink and Great
Northern services in 2021."

Perhaps just the Sutton loop TL?

And all the way to St Albans?

That's probably near enough to the GLA area to be included.

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 05:26:11 -0800 (PST), "R. Mark Clayton"
wrote:

On Friday, 22 January 2016 12:51:22 UTC, e27002 wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 02:09:50 +0000, Basil Jet
wrote:

SNIP

In 1855 the Metropolitan Board of Works was imposed on the urbanized
parts of Middlesex, Surrey, and Kent adjacent to the City. This was
an unelected, unpopular body that descended into corruption.

So, in 1889, without the consent of the governed, half of Middlese,x
and parts of neighboring Surrey, and Kent were annexed into the London
County Council Area.

Really - no members of parliament then - I thought the reform act was in 1832.

Do remind me of when the residents of Middlesex were polled in a
referendum regarding their future.

The London County Council was unique in being
granted powers not given to other counties. Why these powers could
not have been granted the Middlesex, Surrey, and Kent is a mystery.

Because they related to a capital city (and the largest urban centre by a large margin)?

IIRC the extra powers related to education and orphanages. These are
hardly matters that could not be handled by the existing boroughs, or
counties.


SNIP sentimental stuff about Mary le Bone. Me I want to live in a 'liberty' and make my own rules.

Let me know when you find such a land.

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 23:11:00 +0000, Tony Dragon
wrote:

On 21/01/2016 19:24, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 16:41:13 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

Basil Jet wrote:
On 2016\01\21 16:02, e27002 aurora wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 07:55:18 -0800 (PST), "R. Mark Clayton"
wrote:

On Thursday, 21 January 2016 14:07:23 UTC, Recliner wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 13:38:01 +0000, e27002 aurora
wrote:

SNIP

What the Home Counties' commuters do not need is some superfluous
mayor
of an artificial county disrupting their travel arrangements.

In what sense is Greater London any more of an 'artificial county'
than any other local authority border from any time in history?

County boundaries in history tended to follow natural boundaries e.g.
the boundary between Cheshire and Lancashire used to follow the Mersey,
so closely in fact that when the meanders changed course the boundaries
stayed where they were. AFAIR no ceremonial county in what is now
modern Greater London spanned the Thames.

Kent, specifically two parts of Woolwich (i.e. North Woolwich and
another nearby bit whose name I can't recall ATM).

Very well stated. Clearly the conurbation extended south of the
Thames, but under different authorities.

Any arbitrary man-made lines on a map are artificial.

sort of by definition.

Of course, but with history and purpose.

Not really, but there are grudges between counties, and if you
arbitrarily reassign part of Lancashire to be part of Yorkshire the
people in that area are likely to find themselves host to the county
incinerator and such. Herefordshire definitely felt that they were a
conquered people in Hereford & Worcestershire. I'm not aware of this
happening with Greater London, perhaps because so much of so many
historic counties came together that no group dominated.

The strange anomaly is Middlesex, which has been entirely absorbed into
Greater London, but whose name persists in postal addresses in some
boroughs, but not others.

It's also odd that places like Bromley still pretend to be in Kent, though
at least Kent still exists, unlike Middlesex.

Only the county authority was abolished, the geographical area
remained and is still recognised except by those who wish to describe
everything in SE England as some kind of oblast/arrondissement of
London.


And of course the HQ of Surrey Council is in a London Borough.

Quite. Surely the Royal Borough of Kingston-Upon-Thames belongs in
Surrey. Croydon is hardly a good fit for London either.

On 22/01/16 10:20, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-sept
ember.org, at 09:20:58 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016, Recliner
remarked:
The Royal Mail dropped county names from addresses years ago.

Yes, but too many web forms still make it a mandatory field, probably
because they were originally designed to collect US addresses.

Not literally so, because US addresses don't include the county. In
general they are shorter than UK addresses, only having Street, Town,
State (universally abbreviated) and Zipcode.

For example, Microsoft is: One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA, 98052-7329.
No mention at all of King County.

I know. I meant that they insist on a county here because a state is
mandatory in US addresses. Web site designers think they've
internationalised a US site for the UK by changing the State field name
into County.

I wonder if we could thwart them by typing "England" as the county and
"European Union" as the country?
I tried that on the RSGB website and it backfired on me by deciding to
place an overseas surcharge!

ps We do still have some counties in our addresses; places in
Peterborough for example, which is a County. Although in any event
Peterborough is a "Post Town".

On 22/01/16 10:57, Optimist wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 10:20:07 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:

In message
-sept

I wonder if we could thwart them by typing "England" as the county and
"European Union" as the country?

ps We do still have some counties in our addresses; places in
Peterborough for example, which is a County. Although in any event
Peterborough is a "Post Town".

The post town should be abolished, as we have the post code. It often misleads strangers who not
unreasonably follow signposts to it but can find themselves miles away from their intended
destination.


The post town is useful for the Postie if the post code is incorrect.

On 22/01/16 11:20, aurora wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 19:02:06 +0000, Basil Jet
wrote:

Middlesex still exists, it just doesn't have a council. It existed for
hundreds of years before it had a council.

Middlesex exist in the countless property deeds and legal documents
wherein it is referenced.

It's on my birth certificate.

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 05:26:11 -0800 (PST), "R. Mark Clayton"
wrote:

On Friday, 22 January 2016 12:51:22 UTC, e27002 wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 02:09:50 +0000, Basil Jet
wrote:

SNIP

In 1855 the Metropolitan Board of Works was imposed on the urbanized
parts of Middlesex, Surrey, and Kent adjacent to the City. This was
an unelected, unpopular body that descended into corruption.

So, in 1889, without the consent of the governed, half of Middlese,x
and parts of neighboring Surrey, and Kent were annexed into the London
County Council Area.

Really - no members of parliament then - I thought the reform act was in 1832.

The London County Council was unique in being
granted powers not given to other counties. Why these powers could
not have been granted the Middlesex, Surrey, and Kent is a mystery.

Because they related to a capital city (and the largest urban centre by a large margin)?

BTW, Re. your earlier post: Do you not consider the Thames to be the
most natural of boundaries?

On 2016\01\22 02:44, Recliner wrote:
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2016\01\22 02:16, Recliner wrote:
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2016\01\22 02:00, wrote:
In article , (Basil Jet)
wrote:

Middlesex still exists, it just doesn't have a council. It existed
for hundreds of years before it had a council.

We are discussing administrative areas. There is none for Middlesex. When it
was a county its HQ was in London anyway. It was wiped out by the growth of
London. It's gone. It is an ex-county as far as administration of services
for people as opposed to backward-looking sentimentality is concerned.

It's not backward or sentimental. It's a place. Same as Friern Barnet is
a place even though its former Town Hall is a block of flats now. Same
as "The West End" has been a place for centuries despite never appearing
on any map.

You can say particular places still exist, but Middlesex isn't a place. It
was an arbitrary area that's been largely subsumed into a number of London
boroughs, with small bits going to other counties. Some older
organisations and societies might retain the name for historical reasons,
but that's all that's left of it.


Apart from the recent signs marking its boundary.

Yes, those are weird. Talk about a waste of money! It seems councils still
have more money than sense.


Enfield likes signs. They have an "Enfield" sign facing you whenever you
walk out of any station in their area (except I think Southgate). The
Angel Road one must be the oddest one.. it doesn't even have a pole.
Maybe they realised that anyone coming out of that station would be
thinking "Who do I blame" rather than "Who do I thank".

In article ,
(Recliner) wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 10:22:35 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 03:58:31
on Fri, 22 Jan 2016, remarked:
It's been said several times that TSGN is probably "too big to be
manageable" - by Govia anyway. Slimming it down by shifting some of
the services to an alternative operator (and alternative operator)
might help.

Also, there are probably some compromises involved when operating
both short and middle distance routes simultaneously, so again
splitting into [any] two operations could have advantages.

One route NOT included in yesterday's announced scheme is Thameslink.

The Evening Standard did.

"The first route to come under the next Mayor's control will be
Southeastern in 2018, followed by Southern, Thameslink and Great
Northern services in 2021."

Perhaps just the Sutton loop TL?

That refers to the whole TSGN franchise. Note Paul's explanation that the
Standard got it wrong and this is only consultation on joint strategic
arrangements with DfT.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article ,
(aurora) wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 09:14:43 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message
-sept
ember.org, at 08:42:10 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016, Recliner
remarked:
The Royal Mail dropped county names from addresses years ago.

Yes, but too many web forms still make it a mandatory field, probably
because they were originally designed to collect US addresses.

Not literally so, because US addresses don't include the county. In
general they are shorter than UK addresses, only having Street, Town,
State (universally abbreviated) and Zipcode.

For example, Microsoft is: One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA, 98052-7329.
No mention at all of King County.

One would have expected Nigel to have known that.

Is there any postal authority that still uses counties, or their
functional equivalent?

Cantons in Switzerland?

--
Colin Rosenstiel