On 14/09/2019 16:38, Roland Perry wrote:
That's precisely what we are discussing, but in the absence of any
evidence of who/what made it official (and when).

This is the best explanation I've seen.:-

"The custom of considering the location of the old Charing Cross to be
the arbitrary centre of London seems to have arisen in the late 18th or
early 19th century. Laws and rules were often written from that period
specifying that everything within a certain distance of Charing Cross
was to be considered part of London. In 1864 the new Charing Cross
railway station opened on the Strand, just adjacent to the new Trafalgar
Square, and the South Eastern Railway commissioned a new Cross to stand
in the station forecourt - a few hundred yards from the site of the
medieval original. London’s black-cab taxi drivers treat this new Cross
as the centre of the city: their famously rigorous “Knowledge” training
requires them to commit to memory every street and point of interest
within six miles of the station forecourt."

The original Charing Cross was on the site of the current statue of
Charles I, but the cross in the station forecourt dates from the 1860s,
so the cabbie's idea of the central point is from 1864 at the earliest,
when the station opened to traffic. The official centre is apparently
the plaque marking the site of the original Charing Cross, not the
statue.I was mistaken earlier.


I reckon treating Charles as the centre just arose out of "custom and
practice" as the Government grew and moved into Whitehall, and distances
from the centre of Government needed to be specified for various
reasons. One example of this in the 1970s was when I worked for BR in
Watford, and the "London allowance" which would have increased my salary
by about 10% was only available as far out as the South side of the road
our office block occupied the North side of.

The London Stone, originally sited in the middle of what is now Cannon
Street, has also been considered to be the "centre of London", and was
traditionally a place to seal a binding bargain up until at least the
middle ages.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 14/09/2019 17:42, John Williamson wrote:

The London Stone, originally sited in the middle of what is now Cannon
Street, has also been considered to be the "centre of London", and was
traditionally a place to seal a binding bargain up until at least the
middle ages.

In the middle? Do you mean with vehicles passing both side of it?

It's now in a little cage at one side of Cannon Street.
https://goo.gl/maps/s6zetFj72tU8ZN37A


--
Basil Jet recently enjoyed listening to
The Cardigans - 2003 - Long Gone Before Daylight

On 14/09/2019 18:26, Basil Jet wrote:
On 14/09/2019 17:42, John Williamson wrote:

The London Stone, originally sited in the middle of what is now Cannon
Street, has also been considered to be the "centre of London", and was
traditionally a place to seal a binding bargain up until at least the
middle ages.

In the middle? Do you mean with vehicles passing both side of it?

Pretty much, yes, and it even had to have a protective cover put over it
as traffic increased and it started getting hit by cart wheels. the
damage is still visible today.

From Wikilies:- "This is a fragment of the original piece of limestone
once securely fixed in the ground now fronting Cannon Street Station.

Removed in 1742 to the north side of the street, in 1798 it was built
into the south wall of the Church of St. Swithun London Stone which
stood here until demolished in 1962.

Its origin and purpose are unknown but in 1188 there was a reference to
Henry, son of Eylwin de Lundenstane, subsequently Lord Mayor of London."

It's now in a little cage at one side of Cannon Street.
https://goo.gl/maps/s6zetFj72tU8ZN37A

During the renovations at that site, it is on temporary display in the
Museum Of London.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In message , at 17:42:01 on Sat, 14
Sep 2019, John Williamson remarked:
On 14/09/2019 16:38, Roland Perry wrote:
That's precisely what we are discussing, but in the absence of any
evidence of who/what made it official (and when).

This is the best explanation I've seen.:-

"The custom of considering the location of the old Charing Cross to be
the arbitrary centre of London seems to have arisen in the late 18th or
early 19th century. Laws and rules were often written from that period
specifying that everything within a certain distance of Charing Cross
was to be considered part of London. In 1864 the new Charing Cross
railway station opened on the Strand, just adjacent to the new
Trafalgar Square, and the South Eastern Railway commissioned a new
Cross to stand in the station forecourt - a few hundred yards from the
site of the medieval original. London’s black-cab taxi drivers treat
this new Cross as the centre of the city: their famously rigorous
“Knowledge� training requires them to commit to memory every street
and point of interest within six miles of the station forecourt."

The original Charing Cross was on the site of the current statue of
Charles I, but the cross in the station forecourt dates from the 1860s,
so the cabbie's idea of the central point is from 1864 at the earliest,
when the station opened to traffic. The official centre is apparently
the plaque marking the site of the original Charing Cross, not the
statue.I was mistaken earlier.

I reckon treating Charles as the centre just arose out of "custom and
practice" as the Government grew and moved into Whitehall,

Moved from where?

and distances from the centre of Government needed to be specified for
various reasons. One example of this in the 1970s was when I worked for
BR in Watford, and the "London allowance" which would have increased my
salary by about 10% was only available as far out as the South side of
the road our office block occupied the North side of.

The London Stone, originally sited in the middle of what is now Cannon
Street, has also been considered to be the "centre of London", and was
traditionally a place to seal a binding bargain up until at least the
middle ages.

Most of what you say has already been explored earlier in the thread.
The "London Allowance" however is a surprise, and I'd have expected it
to be based on boroughs, some of whose boundaries are indeed down the
middle of streets. Chorleywood, not far from Watford, being one example.
--
Roland Perry

On 14/09/2019 19:48, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 17:42:01 on Sat, 14
Sep 2019, John Williamson remarked:
I reckon treating Charles as the centre just arose out of "custom and
practice" as the Government grew and moved into Whitehall,

Moved from where?

There was a process of centralisation over that period of the Civil
service for things like tax collection. Charles's statue just marked the
end of Whitehall, as Trafalgar Square didn't exist.

Most of what you say has already been explored earlier in the thread.
The "London Allowance" however is a surprise, and I'd have expected it
to be based on boroughs, some of whose boundaries are indeed down the
middle of streets. Chorleywood, not far from Watford, being one example.

In this case, it was actually based on the distance from the region's
headquarters, which was Euston Station, (15 miles was the limit, and we
were a street's width outside. The office location had been chosen on
that basis, according to the more cynical of us.) presumably measured
from the buffers.

The Union had "had words", but we were stuck with it. Rules is rules, innit?
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 14/09/2019 20:28, John Williamson wrote:
On 14/09/2019 19:48, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 17:42:01 on Sat, 14
Sep 2019, John Williamson remarked:
I reckon treating Charles as the centre just arose out of "custom and
practice" as the Government grew and moved into Whitehall,

Moved from where?

There was a process of centralisation over that period of the Civil
service for things like tax collection. Charles's statue just marked the
end of Whitehall, as Trafalgar Square didn't exist.

Another example is that the Met Police area was defined in statute by
reference to the distance in a straight line from Charing Cross in the
1839 Act. Charing Cross was not defined.

Most of what you say has already been explored earlier in the thread.
The "London Allowance" however is a surprise, and I'd have expected it
to be based on boroughs, some of whose boundaries are indeed down the
middle of streets. Chorleywood, not far from Watford, being one example.

In this case, it was actually based on the distance from the region's
headquarters, which was Euston Station, (15 miles was the limit, and we
were a street's width outside. The office location had been chosen on
that basis, according to the more cynical of us.) presumably measured
from the buffers.


Pay board in the 60s/70s defined Inner London by ref to miles from ChX,
Outer London by civic boundaries.


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

In message , at 20:28:49 on Sat, 14
Sep 2019, John Williamson remarked:
On 14/09/2019 19:48, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 17:42:01 on Sat, 14
Sep 2019, John Williamson remarked:
I reckon treating Charles as the centre just arose out of "custom and
practice" as the Government grew and moved into Whitehall,

Moved from where?

There was a process of centralisation over that period of the Civil
service for things like tax collection. Charles's statue just marked
the end of Whitehall, as Trafalgar Square didn't exist.

Interesting they should choose the site of the Eleanor Cross for that.
Could be worth exploring more. Or did the Eleanor Cross already mark the
edge of Whitehall, when that point was chosen as the penultimate
stopping point on the long trip back to Westminster. (eg 'pausing in the
wings', before making a grand entrance the next day)

Most of what you say has already been explored earlier in the thread.
The "London Allowance" however is a surprise, and I'd have expected it
to be based on boroughs, some of whose boundaries are indeed down the
middle of streets. Chorleywood, not far from Watford, being one example.

In this case, it was actually based on the distance from the region's
headquarters, which was Euston Station, (15 miles was the limit, and we
were a street's width outside. The office location had been chosen on
that basis, according to the more cynical of us.) presumably measured
from the buffers.

The Union had "had words", but we were stuck with it. Rules is rules, innit?

If that was Reeds Crescent, I'd demand a recount. Google maps says it's
14.6 miles. 15m is more like the bus garage in Railway Terrace.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at
23:24:59 on Sat, 14 Sep 2019, Robin remarked:

I reckon treating Charles as the centre just arose out of "custom and
practice" as the Government grew and moved into Whitehall,

Moved from where?

There was a process of centralisation over that period of the Civil
service for things like tax collection. Charles's statue just marked
the end of Whitehall, as Trafalgar Square didn't exist.

Another example is that the Met Police area was defined in statute by
reference to the distance

Seven miles in the 1829 Act, extended to 15 miles.

in a straight line from Charing Cross in the 1839 Act. Charing Cross
was not defined.

Not Charing Cross Police Station, which was only converted from a
Hospital in the 1970's (with Cannon Row and Bow St stations closing).

But plausibly close to 4 Whitehall Place which is where they first
started.
--
Roland Perry

On 15/09/2019 07:15, Roland Perry wrote:

If that was Reeds Crescent, I'd demand a recount. Google maps says it's
14.6 miles. 15m is more like the bus garage in Railway Terrace.

Somewhat over 40 years ago now, but it was Clarendon Road. The block is
still there, but with a different occupier, and has had a revamp.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In message , at 08:47:53 on Sun, 15
Sep 2019, John Williamson remarked:
On 15/09/2019 07:15, Roland Perry wrote:

If that was Reeds Crescent, I'd demand a recount. Google maps says it's
14.6 miles. 15m is more like the bus garage in Railway Terrace.

Somewhat over 40 years ago now, but it was Clarendon Road.

I'd still demand a recount. The *far* end of that road is 14.77 miles
from Euston Road (adjacent to the station) not even the buffers,
according to Google maps.

The block is still there, but with a different occupier, and has had a
revamp.

On the west side, presumably. Meridien House? The rest looks too new to
qualify.
--
Roland Perry