"Stephen Osborn" wrote in message
...

I live in the Borough of Lewisham but the boundary with Bromley is no more
than 200 yds away and there will be, of course, analagous places close to
Bexley but clearly in London.

If I cross the boundary into Bromley I do not see any material difference,
not immediately and not for many miles. In broad terms the centre of
Bromley and the center of Lewisham are very similar (and very similar to
many other 'town' centres, but that is a different topic).

London used to be a tiny area on the north bank of Thames and has
gradually
grown. It seems to me that where there is a continuous built up area
there
is one city (or Metropolitan Area if you want). By that standard, Bexley,
Bromley, Croydon etc are already part London and have been for many years.

People of the Black Country would seriously disagree with you as would the
people of Salford.

John Rowland wrote:
"Nick" wrote in message
...

I loathe Bexley being described as "south London",
it really is NOT. We are part of the Greater London
administrative area, that's all, for all other
purposes we are people of Kent.


Kentish people, surely...

Nah, they live in LB Camden...


--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

"Brimstone" wrote in message
...

"Stephen Osborn" wrote in message
...

I live in the Borough of Lewisham but the boundary with Bromley is no
more
than 200 yds away and there will be, of course, analagous places close
to
Bexley but clearly in London.

If I cross the boundary into Bromley I do not see any material
difference,
not immediately and not for many miles. In broad terms the centre of
Bromley and the center of Lewisham are very similar (and very similar to
many other 'town' centres, but that is a different topic).

London used to be a tiny area on the north bank of Thames and has
gradually
grown. It seems to me that where there is a continuous built up area
there
is one city (or Metropolitan Area if you want). By that standard,
Bexley,
Bromley, Croydon etc are already part London and have been for many
years.

People of the Black Country would seriously disagree with you as would the
people of Salford.



As would Nick no doubt. I don't agree.

De facto a continuous built up area is a single _something_, the only
question is what. The phrase Metropolitan Area is used because these
somethings are relatively new and contain a number of things already called
cities.
--
regards

Stephen

In article , Brimstone
wrote:

"Stephen Osborn" wrote in message
...

I live in the Borough of Lewisham but the boundary with Bromley is no
more than 200 yds away and there will be, of course, analagous places
close to Bexley but clearly in London.

If I cross the boundary into Bromley I do not see any material difference,
not immediately and not for many miles. In broad terms the centre of
Bromley and the center of Lewisham are very similar (and very similar to
many other 'town' centres, but that is a different topic).

London used to be a tiny area on the north bank of Thames and has
gradually
grown. It seems to me that where there is a continuous built up area
there
is one city (or Metropolitan Area if you want). By that standard, Bexley,
Bromley, Croydon etc are already part London and have been for many years.

People of the Black Country would seriously disagree with you as would the
people of Salford.

I think of everything inside the M25 as "London", no matter what protests
there may be, and I don't think people from South Shields to Blaydon would
object to being told they live in "Newcastle" and certainly "on the Tyne"
would be acceptable.

Michael Bell

--

In article ,
"Graham J" wrote:

Describing locations by administrative areas, particularly as they
seem to change so relatively frequently in the UK, makes no sense
to me, though this seems increasingly common.

Absolutely, and it is not helped by the Ordnance Survey using administrative
boundaries on their maps.

The OS using admin boundaries is very useful to people who want to know
where current admin boundaries go. They can't really use out-of-date
boundaries.

http://www.abcounties.co.uk/ gives a good background to all this sort of
thing.

There is always going to be a problem over which county boundary to
use. The 'traditional counties' have themselves had boundaries which
shifted - many were undefined until the later middle ages, then some
former counties were made exclaves of other counties (Islandshire
being possibly the best known example). The exclaves were mostly
abolished in the 1830s and other changes were made in the 1880s.

--
http://www.election.demon.co.uk
"The guilty party was the Liberal Democrats and they were hardened offenders,
and coded racism was again in evidence in leaflets distributed in September
1993." - Nigel Copsey, "Contemporary British Fascism", page 62.

Nick wrote:
"Epetruk" wrote in message
...
Nick wrote:

London heritage??? We have been part of Kent for generations, and
only sucked into the Greater London experiment so the Tories could
take control of London government (well, mostly). I am sure the
overwhelming majority of residents in Bexley describe, and want to
describe themselves as living in Kent (me included). Maybe those of
us in metropolitan Kent will one day escape from the clutches of
central London and determine our own affairs without inteference.

I loathe Bexley being described as "south London", it really is NOT.
We are part of the Greater London administrative area, that's all,
for all other purposes we are people of Kent. I know "Londoners"
find this hard to believe, but many of us don't wanty to be part of
your high-density overpopulated sprawling urban gloom.

So... which is more reliable in determining where a place is located
- a postcode county system which isn't even required to be used by
the Royal Mail, or the county that administers the borough?

I mean, nobody seriously argues that Bordeaux is in the UK.

Postal counties are pretty well established, based largely on
administrative counties of some decades past. People, not
surprisingly, quote where they live as where they are addressed,
hence people in Bexley say they live in Kent as that's what they
usually quote as their address.

But I've already stated that they aren't even used today by the institution
that introduced them.

And why use postal counties in particular, which after all only reflect the
divisions of England at a particular point in the past? Why not go further
back - or further forward?

Anyway, if I lived in Bexley, I would still get a good night's sleep if my
address was referred to as 'Bexley, London' as long as my letters still got
to my address and people were able to find my address.

--
Akin

aknak at aksoto dot idps dot co dot uk

"John Rowland" wrote in message
...
"Nick" wrote in message
...

I loathe Bexley being described as "south London",
it really is NOT. We are part of the Greater London
administrative area, that's all, for all other
purposes we are people of Kent.

Kentish people, surely...

Yes, I wondered who would say that ;-)

Nick

"Graham J" wrote in message
...
...

Plus, I don't understand why the "Greater" is being lost from "Greater
London". Greater London, to me, means real London plus lots of fringe
areas
that aren't really "London" but close enough to be administered by it.
However, organisations such as BBC London appear to ban the phrase unless
it's in a name of an actual body, eg the GLA.

When we had the GLC the term 'Greater London' did seem to be used a lot
more, though that has never been part of any postal addresses. Now we
have
Greater London Authority the term is just as well defined, but we only
really hear mention of the Mayor Of London and the London Assembly that
comprise it.

And have you noticed how the GLA, Mayor and various other bodies have
re-invented the definition of a "city" to mean the county of Greater London?
And no-one seems to be pick them up on it! In what way the village of Downe
in LB Bromley is part of a "city" I really don't know...

Nick

"Ian Jelf" wrote in message
...
In message , Nick
writes
I know "Londoners" find this hard to believe, but many of us don't wanty
to be part of your high-density overpopulated sprawling urban gloom.

But people there are probably happy with their co-ordinated public
transport and - when the time comes - Freedom Passes?

Whenever I have this debate about Bexley part of Greater London or not, the
biggest noise always seems to be made about the Freedom pass!

Arguably, I think the freedom pass is overkill anyway; I would support free
use of local buses to moderately distant locations, trains to central
London, and maybe tube travel in Z1 off-peak. In Bexley, I would guess that
95% of Freedom pass owners use the train and tube extremely rarely, and
probably less than 50% use the buses regularly. I don't believe pensioners
are at all bothered that they can travel to Uxbridge for free. How many
Freedom pass users regularly travel to Dartford and Bluewater and contribute
to "out-of-region" retail spend I wonder :-)

Co-ordinated local public transport? In Bexley, that just means running
buses with the NR network, and you don't need a massive Greater London body
to draw up a few bus timetables to match those of the NR network.

Nick

In message , Nick
writes

And have you noticed how the GLA, Mayor and various other bodies have
re-invented the definition of a "city" to mean the county of Greater London?

No. The City of London is something quite separate and it continues to
have its own Lord Mayor.

The Mayor of London's jurisdiction is laid down by Act of parliament
(principally the London boroughs). What do you mean by the "county of
Greater London" ?

And no-one seems to be pick them up on it! In what way the village of Downe
in LB Bromley is part of a "city" I really don't know...

Perhaps LB ("London Borough") might give you a clue? But why do you drag
"city" into it? The City of London has no authority over the village of
Downe as far as I know.

--
Paul Terry