On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 16:54:06 +0000, Steve Fitzgerald
] wrote:

In message , Axlegrease
writes

My spouse and I both lived further out in Essex "proper" before we
married. The need to find somewhere to live for us and our child,
within reasonable commuting distance of our jobs which were then in the
Square Mile, brought us more or less accidentally to this borough. Just
because we stepped over an invisible line, it didn't mean we stopped
being Essex people.

So, by your theory, perhaps I should now declare the Lancashire People's
Republic of Newham as I now live there?

You 'chose' to live in a London Borough.... live with it.

Oh, I'm now a Londoner (lives there, pays council tax etc. etc.) who
just happens to originate from Lancashire.

Well, we can't hold it against you for coming from the "wrong" side of
the Pennines, Steve...

Seriously though, as a Yorkshireman-by-birth now living on the
Enfield/Harringey border for over three years, I have no problem with
accepting the status of "naturalised Londoner." I live here, work
here, and no doubt will continue to to enjoy doing so for many years
to come. Strangely, it seems that those in this thread who have a
"problem" with living in London have always been a lot closer to the
city than we have - a strange sort of inverted snobbery, really!
--
Nick Cooper

[Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]

The London Underground at War:
http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/...ra/lu/tuaw.htm
625-Online - classic British television:
http://www.625.org.uk
'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic:
http://www.thingstocome.org.uk

In message , Nick Cooper
writes
Strangely, it seems that those in this thread who have a "problem" with
living in London have always been a lot closer to the city than we have
-
As someone is broadly similar position (although commuting down rather
than living in London), I've noticed exactly the same thing.

That said, people who come from outside to any place often seem to be
the most vociferous in defending it.
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

--- Rich Mallard said...

"Solar Penguin" wrote in message

I only ask because when people are trapped in a losing argument
(especially in Usenet) they normally start bluffing about
non-existent
rights. It's the stage before mentioning Nazis. So I do tend to
get a
bit cynical when people start mentioning strange rights that
no-one's
ever heard of before...

It doesn't look like a losing argument to me.

Well, Nick definitely isn't winning. He's clearly outnumbered at every
turn. (And the fact that he reads and posts to uk.transport.london -
not uk.transport.kent - in the first place shows that deep down even he
doesn't really believe his claims! It's that hypocrisy more than
anything else which annoys me!)

So, if I decide to ban you
from being called Solar Penguin and dictate that you must now be
called
Lunar Rat, is that reasonable?

And what would give *you* the right to make that ban in the first place?

You would have "every right" to choose your name and label,
not because there is an specific act of parliament that says
so, but because it would be commonly held as reasonable IMO.

There are laws and acts of Parliament, etc. that relate to pseudonyms,
aliases, etc. One of them almost certainly lists the ability to choose
a pseudonym as my legal right. But if it didn't, and it turned out I
was mistaken, I'd be prepared to accept that choosing an alias is a
privilege, not a right, and I'd even stop using it *if* ordered by
anyone with the right to do so.

"Solar Penguin" wrote in message
...

Well, Nick definitely isn't winning. He's clearly outnumbered
at every turn. (And the fact that he reads and posts to
uk.transport.london - not uk.transport.kent - in the first place
shows that deep down even he doesn't really believe his
claims! It's that hypocrisy more than anything else which
annoys me!)

You must be even more annoyed that there is a regular poster who lives in
Australia!

--
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

--- John Rowland said...

"Solar Penguin" wrote in message

(And the fact that he reads and posts to
uk.transport.london - not uk.transport.kent - in the first place
shows that deep down even he doesn't really believe his
claims! It's that hypocrisy more than anything else which
annoys me!)

You must be even more annoyed that there is a regular poster who
lives in Australia!

But at least our overseas posters don't claim to actively hate London,
or insist that they want as little to do with it as possible. And then
*still* read and post here.

:-)

Richard Rundle wrote:

"Aidan Stanger" wrote...
1. If you live in Bexley, how much of your council tax goes to Kent
County Council?

None now, but AIUI some did before the GLA was created, as KCC were
responsible for some of the roads.

2. The Royal Mail dropped the requirement for county names in
addresses many years ago.
Type your postcode into their address finder.

A significant proportion of mail is still hand sorted, and that is still
done by county.

Are you sure ?

The last time I was in a medium-sized sorting office, all manual sorting was
based on the PostTown and the first half of the Postcode only.

That, plus the fact that counties are now not part of the recommended postal
address, makes me doubt your statement.

It was true when I worked for them (back when they were called
Consignia) but I suppose they could've changed it since then (though
somehow I doubt it).

Your statement is partly correct - they were sorted by post town.
However, there are too many post towns for single stage manual sorting,
so letters were sorted in two stages. Primary sorting was done mainly by
county (or in some cases, groups of counties). There were also boxes for
London sectors (W,N,SE etc) and the busiest London postcodes (mainly in
Central London) had their own boxes, as did several cities.

Where the county boundary did not match the postcode boundary (e.g. the
part of Bedfordshire with an MK postcode) they generally went with the
county rather than the postcode. I can recall only one exception:
anything with a CH postcode went in the Cheshire box, even the places
that were actually in Wales!

Anything ambiguous (such as letters addressed to Keston or Kingston
without a postcode or county) went in the "Blind" box.

Nick wrote:

"Aidan Stanger" wrote...
Nick wrote:
"Ian Jelf" wrote...
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!

Probably because the holders have got the most to lose, and will
fiercely resist any attempt to take it away.

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.

Do you know any Freedom pass owners? Your guess seems wildly low!

Yes, I know lots of Freedom pass owners, many of whom drive and never use
it;

Then why do they bother claiming it?

of the rest, most just use the local buses (local as in
Bexley/Bromley/Dartford/Woolwich).

The mobility of pensioners varies enormously - some journey all around
London and beyond, while others only use one bus route, and rarely
travel any further than the supermarket nearest the bus stop two stops
away from where they live!

Of the former group, not all drive. Of those who do, not many will be
able to in the near future.

What are the actual figures? My guess is low, but I suspect it might be of
the right order.

I don't have the figures, and AFAIK nobody else does.

I don't believe pensioners
are at all bothered that they can travel to Uxbridge for free.

Maybe not Uxbridge, but certainly Kingston and Heathrow, despite the
truncation of the 726 at Bromley.

I don't think pensioners in Bexley have much interest or inclination to
travel to either of those places ;-)

Then you're wrong - some certainly do.

How many Freedom pass users regularly travel to Dartford and Bluewater
and contribute to "out-of-region" retail spend I wonder :-)

Unlike normal bus passes, Freedom passes are not valid as far as
Bluewater. However, they are valid to Dartford and Swanley on the train
as well as on the bus. Hundreds use Freedom passes to get to Dartford
and Swanley markets, but that's hardly "out of region".

Ah, that's interesting and I didn't know that - not valid beyond Dartford
for Bluewater by bus? I am quite surprised at that. I am sure pensioners
around here would love to stay on the 96 to Bluewater and not be chucked off
at Dartford. So pensioners in Bexley can travel to Uxbridge for free, but
have to pay to go a few miles to Bluewater, hmm!

In practice they're not chucked off, so many do travel to Bluewater for
free even though they're not supposed to! They have to pay to get back,
of course.

I agree with you that's it hardly out of region, but I was (pehaps too)
subltely hinting at how the daft the London/South East government regional
division is. Retail spend in Dartford and Swanley harms the spend figures
for "London" and boosts those for the "SouthEast" region.

Maybe that's true of the figures, but does that translate to any
disadvantage in reality?

For similar reasons it appears, Bexley (the council) seem absolutely
terrfied of promoting the proximity of Bluewater as a major benefit of
living in Bexley, partly because it means diverting spend outside the
borough (OK, and they want to promote their own shopping centres too, eg
Bexleyheath, I agree with that as well). However, living a few minutes
from the biggest shopping centre in Europe is a big benefit IMO.

I thought Meadowhall claimed that title, and Bluewater only claimed to
be the biggest in Britain :-)

Some people find the size of Bluewater offputting, and many would prefer
to shop in the more familliar Central London. And with freedom passes,
they can!

Aidan Stanger wrote:


In practice they're not chucked off, so many do travel to Bluewater for
free even though they're not supposed to! They have to pay to get back,
of course.


Is the reduction of validity of Freedom Passes, i.e. beyond the Greater
London boundary, a new thing? Since you (I think it was you) raised it
earlier in the thread, I have looked at the current bus maps and there
is indeed a rather vague note to that effect, which I had not noticed
before. I ask because, within the last two months, I have travelled from
Dartford to Bluewater and back on route 96, using a Freedom Pass,
presuming the journey to be "legal", and was not asked to pay a fare;
indeed, nothing was said by the drivers. I have also travelled to
Potters Bar on a 313 and back on an 84, again without challenge.

The bus map suggests that pass holders check with the driver or phone LT
Information, which in turn suggests that the rules are not
straightforward. I wonder, for example, if someone travelling on a 107
from Barnet to Stanmore (both within the GLC boundary) would be liable
for an excess fare because this route goes via Borehamwood and Elstree,
both of which are outside the boundary?

--
John Ray

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 09:13:50 +0000, John Ray
wrote:

Is the reduction of validity of Freedom Passes, i.e. beyond the Greater
London boundary, a new thing? Since you (I think it was you) raised it
earlier in the thread, I have looked at the current bus maps and there
is indeed a rather vague note to that effect, which I had not noticed
before. I ask because, within the last two months, I have travelled from
Dartford to Bluewater and back on route 96, using a Freedom Pass,
presuming the journey to be "legal", and was not asked to pay a fare;
indeed, nothing was said by the drivers. I have also travelled to
Potters Bar on a 313 and back on an 84, again without challenge.

The bus map suggests that pass holders check with the driver or phone LT
Information, which in turn suggests that the rules are not
straightforward. I wonder, for example, if someone travelling on a 107
from Barnet to Stanmore (both within the GLC boundary) would be liable
for an excess fare because this route goes via Borehamwood and Elstree,
both of which are outside the boundary?

This is the link to a document that answers your questions.

http://www.transportforlondon.gov.uk...cs/Freedom.pdf

--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

In article , Solar Penguin
[snip]

But at least our overseas posters don't claim to actively hate London,
or insist that they want as little to do with it as possible. And then
*still* read and post here.

:-)
I must admit to some mixed thinking here. I am in favour of
efficiency and doing things well, and transport in London (and elsewhere)
being done as well as possible in the interests of the inhabitants.

That's why I have posted on the benefits of belts (rather suitable
for buiding as part of new developments such as the Barbican, as well as
distributing passengers from the big south bank stations like Waterloo to the
city centre) and linking between routes which cross without interchange, such
as the North London Line and the Northern Line.

But I am also aware of the political dimension of projects like
Crossrail and Thameslink, which won't benefit Londoners very much, far less
than the projects I discuss above. Crossrail and Thameslink can never be
viable in terms of paying back their capital, and they can only be justified
in cost-benefit terms if they attract vast number of NEW travellers into
London. A decision to build them at government expense is a decision to
abandon the rest of the country and concentrate all development in the South
- East. As a Northerner, I am against that. And maybe you should be too.
Remember what happened to capitals which get too far out of step with their
countries, like Paris in 1871. The Paris municipality ("commune" in French =
"municipality" in English: our failure to translate this word has led us to
serious misunderstanding of this event) was crushed by the provinces. Think
hard!

Michael Bell

--