On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 17:32:51 +0000, Mrs Redboots
wrote:

Michael Bell wrote to uk.transport.london on Mon, 27 Dec 2004:

I think rhythm is important here, many people break phone Nos into triplets,
but it's into duplets on the continent.

Really, of course, we should quote London numbers in the same way that
we quote every other number (mobiles included) - as a group of 5
followed by a group of 6. But it's horrendously difficult - I can't do
it in my head with my own phone number, never mind anybody else's!

Why a group of 5? The area code is only 3 digits long.

"Mrs Redboots" wrote in message
news

Really, of course, we should quote London numbers
in the same way that we quote every other number
(mobiles included) - as a group of 5 followed by a group of 6.

Really, of course, we shouldn't. The first gap should be after the bit that
you don't have to dial if it matches your own phone number, i.e. 020.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

In message , John Rowland
writes

Really, of course, we shouldn't. The first gap should be after the bit
that you don't have to dial if it matches your own phone number, i.e.
020.
All very interesting, but just goes to show the snobbery of the people
who try to point out their living in the London area, as I've never read
anything authoritative on telephone number groupings.
--
Clive.

"Richard J." wrote in message
k...
Mrs Redboots wrote:

Really, of course, we should quote London numbers in the same way
that we quote every other number (mobiles included) - as a group of
5 followed by a group of 6.
snip
Also, I certainly don't adhere to any particular grouping of mobile
numbers, preferring to group the digits in the most memorable way. Do
any of the mobile phone companies or any other relevant body recommend a
particular format for mobile numbers?

I find them much easier to quote as, say, 0791-234-5678. The only
recommendation I've seen is to quote them as +44(0)7912345678.
--
Terry Harper, Web Co-ordinator, The Omnibus Society
75th Anniversary 2004, see http://www.omnibussoc.org/75th.htm
E-mail:
URL: http://www.terry.harper.btinternet.co.uk/

Clive Coleman wrote:
In message , John Rowland
writes

Really, of course, we shouldn't. The first gap should be after the
bit that you don't have to dial if it matches your own phone
number, i.e. 020.
All very interesting, but just goes to show the snobbery of the
people who try to point out their [= they're] living in the London
area, as I've never read anything authoritative on telephone number
groupings.

How on earth can you deduce any snobbery from that eminently practical
suggestion? In fact the snobbery lies with people who have to emphasise
that they live in the "0207" part of London.

I'm coming to the conclusion that "just goes to show" often means
"matches my prejudices".

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

"A H" wrote in message
...
All day long the lazy journalists of the UK media have been giving out the
emergency telephone number for the SE Asia earthquake and subsequent tidal
waves in the format:

'0207 008 0000'

BBC News 24, Sky News, Teletext have been displaying and saying it wrongly
all day
ITN News 24 format it correctly on-screen but the presenters have been
saying "0207 008 000" all day long....

Is Oftel/Ofcom to blame for this mass stupidity/ignorance (because of the
way the renumbering was done a few years back) or are people in this
country
in general just thick?

Soon we can expect to see/hear '0203 xxx xxxx'

Is this the only country in the world that can't cope with simple number
changes?

Andy


The Ofcom recommended telephone number layouts are at:
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/licensing_nu...ide?a=87101#1b

Note the difference between the national and international formats (the
international format does not include the zero before the area code or any
brackets)

"Clive Coleman" wrote in message

All very interesting, but just goes to show the snobbery of the people
who try to point out their living in the London area, as I've never
read anything authoritative on telephone number groupings.

You mean like
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/licensing_nu...ide?a=87101#1b ?

Regards
Sunil

Mrs Redboots wrote:

as a group of 5
followed by a group of 6

But my Reading number isn't 01189 351xxx, it's 0118 9351xxx, which is
preferably read as 0118 935 1xxx

--
confguide.com - the conference guide

In message , at
15:20:49 on Mon, 27 Dec 2004, Martin Underwood
remarked:
I tend to break numbers into triplets, but if I knew the number before BT
added extra digits I break it at that point without even thinking about it:
my parents' number used to be 3698 and then was lengthened to 613698:
subconsciously I break this into 61 and 3698 rather than 613 698 ;-)

The breakpoint can affect the memorability very significantly. I have a
number that ends either 604 080, or 60 40 80, depending on where you
break it!
--
Roland Perry

In article , Terry Harper
writes
"Richard J." wrote in message
. uk...
Mrs Redboots wrote:

Really, of course, we should quote London numbers in the same way
that we quote every other number (mobiles included) - as a group of
5 followed by a group of 6.
snip
Also, I certainly don't adhere to any particular grouping of mobile
numbers, preferring to group the digits in the most memorable way. Do
any of the mobile phone companies or any other relevant body recommend a
particular format for mobile numbers?

I find them much easier to quote as, say, 0791-234-5678. The only
recommendation I've seen is to quote them as +44(0)7912345678.

I, too, quote mobiles as 4+3+4 - the first 4 digits tend to be the
provider code, certainly our work ones (we have about 2000 mobile
numbers) are like that. But as I travel for work, mostly I store numbers
as +44 20 1234 5678. (Incidentally, the schoolboy in my finds it
hysterically funny that the international code for Russia is '007').

BBC London (or GLN or whatever) yesterday had the number displayed
correctly, but the newsreader read it twice, once 'correctly' and the
second time as 0207 008 0000 (probably from force of habit).

If it really bugs you (or anything else broadcast on the BBC prompts you
to complain) the best way is to ring BBC Audience Services 08700 100 222
and ask to speak to the Duty Officer (Or ring 020 7580 4468 for radio -
still ask for the Duty Officer). The BBC records all calls in the 'Duty
Log' which circulates around the management (daily when I worked there).
And they do take notice.
--
Steve
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCM/B$ d++(-) s+:+ a+ C++ UL++ L+ P+ W++ N+++ K w--- O V
PS+++ PE- t+ 5++ X- R* tv+ b+++ DI++ G e h---- r+++ z++++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------