London Transport museum
 

At Covent Garden station this morning the charming young lady^Wrecorded
announcement was telling people to get off there for the museum. I take
it that it has re-opened then?

And I notice that the announcement was about "London's transport museum"
and not the "London Transport museum". Bah.

--
David Cantrell | Enforcer, South London Linguistic Massive

When one has bathed in Christ there is no need to bathe a second time
-- St. Jerome, on why washing is a vile pagan practice
in a letter to Heliodorus, 373 or 374 AD

London Transport museum
 

David Cantrell wrote:
At Covent Garden station this morning the charming young lady^Wrecorded
announcement was telling people to get off there for the museum. I take
it that it has re-opened then?

Not according to their web site.

And I notice that the announcement was about "London's transport museum"
and not the "London Transport museum". Bah.

Well, it is not a museum that is strictly about London Transport, which
no longer exists.
--
Michael Hoffman

London Transport museum
 

Michael Hoffman wrote:
David Cantrell wrote:

And I notice that the announcement was about "London's transport
museum" and not the "London Transport museum". Bah.

Well, it is not a museum that is strictly about London Transport,
which no longer exists.

I guess they should rename the Imperial War Museum then.

London Transport museum
 

On Feb 23, 4:17 pm, Michael Hoffman wrote:
David Cantrell wrote:
At Covent Garden station this morning the charming young lady^Wrecorded
announcement was telling people to get off there for the museum. I take
it that it has re-opened then?

Not according to their web site.

And I notice that the announcement was about "London's transport museum"
and not the "London Transport museum". Bah.

Well, it is not a museum that is strictly about London Transport, which
no longer exists.
--
Michael Hoffman

It is a museum about transport in London so "London Transport Museum"
remained apt even after LT ceased to exist. It was a pointless change
of name.

London Transport museum
 

umpston wrote:
On Feb 23, 4:17 pm, Michael Hoffman wrote:
David Cantrell wrote:
I notice that the announcement was about "London's transport museum"
and not the "London Transport museum". Bah.
It is a museum about transport in London so "London Transport Museum"
remained apt even after LT ceased to exist.

Yeah, but the OP said "London Transport museum" [sic]. ;)

It was a pointless change of name.

I agree but it's equally pointless to complain about it.
--
Michael Hoffman

London Transport museum
 

On 23 Feb, 15:58, David Cantrell wrote:
At Covent Garden station this morning the charming young lady^Wrecorded
announcement was telling people to get off there for the museum. I take
it that it has re-opened then?

No, the automated announcement advising people to alight for the
museum has been in use continually since it closed, proving that not
only do these new announcements constitute over-provision (announcing
every station name in advance, despite everybody coping perfectly well
without LU doing so before), but that one also ends up less informed
by listening to them than by not!

London Transport museum
 

John Rowland wrote:
Michael Hoffman wrote:
David Cantrell wrote:
And I notice that the announcement was about "London's transport
museum" and not the "London Transport museum". Bah.
Well, it is not a museum that is strictly about London Transport,
which no longer exists.

I guess they should rename the Imperial War Museum then.

Given it combines three unfashionable concepts, I'm sure it is only a
matter of time before it becomes the Oppressed Indigenous Persons'
Conflict-Resolution Interactive Visitor Experience. Or something.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

London Transport museum
 

Keith Raeburn wrote:
On 23 Feb, 15:58, David Cantrell wrote:
At Covent Garden station this morning the charming young
lady^Wrecorded announcement was telling people to get off there
for the museum. I take it that it has re-opened then?

No, the automated announcement advising people to alight for the
museum has been in use continually since it closed,

Since you have apparently listened to it continually and are evidently
irritated by it, I assume you must have complained to LU/TfL about it.
What response did you receive?

proving that not only do these new announcements constitute
over-provision
(announcing every station name in advance, despite everybody coping
perfectly well without LU doing so before),

Given that London is a major international tourist destination, and
having noticed many tourists staring in bewilderment at the line
diagrams in the trains, I think it's likely that many passengers do
appreciate being told the next station name in advance. There are many
examples of over-provision in announcements, but this isn't one of them.

but that one also ends up less informed by listening to them than by
not!

In this instance I agree, but not generally.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

London Transport museum
 

On Feb 23, 4:27�pm, "John Rowland"
wrote:
Michael Hoffman wrote:
David Cantrell wrote:

And I notice that the announcement was about "London's transport
museum" and not the "London Transport museum". *Bah.

Well, it is not a museum that is strictly about London Transport,
which no longer exists.

I guess they should rename the Imperial War Museum then.

I agree that dark forces probably want to rename the Imperial War
Museum (like the Imperial War Graves Commission was renamed the
Commonwealth War Graves Commission in the 1960s), but that would be a
mistake since the wars which are remembered and exhibited there are
from the Imperial era.

Likewise the Order of the British Empire was founded in 1902 at the
height of the Empire and the medals of the order bear the insignia of
Edward VII who was monarch at the time, and it would be an insult to
and denial of history to rename it now.

Similarly, it was a silly act of vandalism to rename the London
Transport Museum just because London Transport happened to cease to
exist (itself a silly act of vandalism). How many people, when
referring to a London bus say "a Transport for London bus" as opposed
to a "London Transport bus" even nowadays?

Marc.

London Transport museum
 

London Transport museum
 

"Arthur Figgis" wrote in message
...

Given it combines three unfashionable concepts, I'm sure it is only a
matter of time before it becomes the Oppressed Indigenous Persons'
Conflict-Resolution Interactive Visitor Experience. Or something.

LOL. Submitted to alt.humor.best-of-usenet

Ian

London Transport museum
 

On Feb 23, 5:13 pm, Michael Hoffman wrote:
umpston wrote:
On Feb 23, 4:17 pm, Michael Hoffman wrote:
David Cantrell wrote:
I notice that the announcement was about "London's transport museum"
and not the "London Transport museum". Bah.
It is a museum about transport in London so "London Transport Museum"
remained apt even after LT ceased to exist.

Yeah, but the OP said "London Transport museum" [sic]. ;)

It was a pointless change of name.

I agree but it's equally pointless to complain about it.
--
Michael Hoffman

I was merely commenting on your specious argument which seemed to be
in defence of the newer name.

London Transport museum
 

On Feb 24, 1:18 am, " wrote:
On Feb 23, 4:27?pm, "John Rowland"

wrote:
Michael Hoffman wrote:
David Cantrell wrote:

And I notice that the announcement was about "London's transport
museum" and not the "London Transport museum". ?Bah.

Well, it is not a museum that is strictly about London Transport,
which no longer exists.

I guess they should rename the Imperial War Museum then.

I agree that dark forces probably want to rename the Imperial War
Museum (like the Imperial War Graves Commission was renamed the
Commonwealth War Graves Commission in the 1960s), but that would be a
mistake since the wars which are remembered and exhibited there are
from the Imperial era.

Likewise the Order of the British Empire was founded in 1902 at the
height of the Empire and the medals of the order bear the insignia of
Edward VII who was monarch at the time, and it would be an insult to
and denial of history to rename it now.

Similarly, it was a silly act of vandalism to rename the London
Transport Museum just because London Transport happened to cease to
exist (itself a silly act of vandalism). How many people, when
referring to a London bus say "a Transport for London bus" as opposed
to a "London Transport bus" even nowadays?

Marc.

I agree with you about the LT museum but not about the rest. The War
Graves Commission was renamed after the the Imperial system of
government had ceased to exist for the represented countries. The
British Empire was already in terminal decline by the time of WWII.

I would also support a new system of honours which makes no mention of
the former empire. Although the empire will always be a part of our
history and heritage I see no point in continuing to celebrate it as
if it still existed. There is no insult or dishonour to previous
recipients of the various 'Empire' medals since there is no need to
abolish or rename previous honours, just create some new ones for
future recipients. Like Edward VII did in 1902.

London Transport museum
 

umpston wrote:
On Feb 23, 5:13 pm, Michael Hoffman wrote:
umpston wrote:
On Feb 23, 4:17 pm, Michael Hoffman wrote:
David Cantrell wrote:
I notice that the announcement was about "London's transport museum"
and not the "London Transport museum". Bah.
It is a museum about transport in London so "London Transport Museum"
remained apt even after LT ceased to exist.
Yeah, but the OP said "London Transport museum" [sic]. ;)

It was a pointless change of name.

I agree but it's equally pointless to complain about it.
--
Michael Hoffman

I was merely commenting on your specious argument which seemed to be
in defence of the newer name.

Since it wasn't in defence of the new name, it is specious to make such
a comment. ;)
--
Michael Hoffman

London Transport museum
 

On Feb 25, 6:19 pm, Michael Hoffman wrote:
umpston wrote:
On Feb 23, 5:13 pm, Michael Hoffman wrote:
umpston wrote:
On Feb 23, 4:17 pm, Michael Hoffman wrote:
David Cantrell wrote:
I notice that the announcement was about "London's transport museum"
and not the "London Transport museum". Bah.
It is a museum about transport in London so "London Transport Museum"
remained apt even after LT ceased to exist.
Yeah, but the OP said "London Transport museum" [sic]. ;)

It was a pointless change of name.

I agree but it's equally pointless to complain about it.
--
Michael Hoffman

I was merely commenting on your specious argument which seemed to be
in defence of the newer name.

Since it wasn't in defence of the new name, it is specious to make such
a comment. ;)
--
Michael Hoffman

Well I certainly missed your point then. What was it?

London Transport museum
 

umpston wrote:
On Feb 25, 6:19 pm, Michael Hoffman wrote:
umpston wrote:
On Feb 23, 5:13 pm, Michael Hoffman wrote:
umpston wrote:
On Feb 23, 4:17 pm, Michael Hoffman wrote:
David Cantrell wrote:
I notice that the announcement was about "London's transport museum"
and not the "London Transport museum". Bah.
It is a museum about transport in London so "London Transport Museum"
remained apt even after LT ceased to exist.
Yeah, but the OP said "London Transport museum" [sic]. ;)
It was a pointless change of name.
I agree but it's equally pointless to complain about it.
--
Michael Hoffman
I was merely commenting on your specious argument which seemed to be
in defence of the newer name.
Since it wasn't in defence of the new name, it is specious to make such
a comment. ;)
--
Michael Hoffman

Well I certainly missed your point then. What was it?

A silly joke about the difference between the "London Transport museum"
[sic] and the "London Transport Museum."
--
Michael Hoffman

London Transport museum
 

On Feb 25, 4:44�pm, "umpston" wrote:
On Feb 24, 1:18 am, " wrote:





On Feb 23, 4:27?pm, "John Rowland"

wrote:
Michael Hoffman wrote:
David Cantrell wrote:

And I notice that the announcement was about "London's transport
museum" and not the "London Transport museum". ?Bah.

Well, it is not a museum that is strictly about London Transport,
which no longer exists.

I guess they should rename the Imperial War Museum then.

I agree that dark forces probably want to rename the Imperial War
Museum (like the Imperial War Graves Commission was renamed the
Commonwealth War Graves Commission in the 1960s), but that would be a
mistake since the wars which are remembered and exhibited there are
from the Imperial era.

Likewise the Order of the British Empire was founded in 1902 at the
height of the Empire and the medals of the order bear the insignia of
Edward VII who was monarch at the time, and it would be an insult to
and denial of history to rename it now.

Similarly, it was a silly act of vandalism to rename the London
Transport Museum just because London Transport happened to cease to
exist (itself a silly act of vandalism). How many people, when
referring to a London bus say "a Transport for London bus" as opposed
to a "London Transport bus" even nowadays?

Marc.

I agree with you about the LT museum but not about the rest. *The War
Graves Commission was renamed after the the Imperial system of
government had ceased to exist for the represented countries. *The
British Empire was already in terminal decline by the time of WWII.

I would also support a new system of honours which makes no mention of
the former empire. *Although the empire will always be a part of our
history and heritage I see no point in continuing to celebrate it as
if it still existed. *There is no insult or dishonour to previous
recipients of the various 'Empire' medals since there is no need to
abolish or rename previous honours, just create some new ones for
future recipients. *Like Edward VII did in 1902.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So what would you choose as (a) the new name for the Imperial War
Museum and (b) the replacement for the Order of the British Empire?

Just curious!

I see no need to change names for change's sake, and since honours are
archaic and pertaining to history by their very nature (e.g. very few
women and even fewer men wear garters in the 21st Century!), and
nobody but a fool could forget, with the ritualistic self-flagellation
indulged by the intelligentsia in the media and elsewhere that the
British Empire was the most evil concept since Original Sin, perhaps
it does no harm to keep us all in mind of that most ignominious period
of our history lest we should ever be tempted to repeat it!

Just joking!

Marc.

London Transport museum
 

On Feb 25, 9:43 pm, " wrote:
On Feb 25, 4:44?pm, "umpston" wrote:



On Feb 24, 1:18 am, " wrote:

On Feb 23, 4:27?pm, "John Rowland"

wrote:
Michael Hoffman wrote:
David Cantrell wrote:

And I notice that the announcement was about "London's transport
museum" and not the "London Transport museum". ?Bah.

Well, it is not a museum that is strictly about London Transport,
which no longer exists.

I guess they should rename the Imperial War Museum then.

I agree that dark forces probably want to rename the Imperial War
Museum (like the Imperial War Graves Commission was renamed the
Commonwealth War Graves Commission in the 1960s), but that would be a
mistake since the wars which are remembered and exhibited there are
from the Imperial era.

Likewise the Order of the British Empire was founded in 1902 at the
height of the Empire and the medals of the order bear the insignia of
Edward VII who was monarch at the time, and it would be an insult to
and denial of history to rename it now.

Similarly, it was a silly act of vandalism to rename the London
Transport Museum just because London Transport happened to cease to
exist (itself a silly act of vandalism). How many people, when
referring to a London bus say "a Transport for London bus" as opposed
to a "London Transport bus" even nowadays?

Marc.

I agree with you about the LT museum but not about the rest. ?The War
Graves Commission was renamed after the the Imperial system of
government had ceased to exist for the represented countries. ?The
British Empire was already in terminal decline by the time of WWII.

I would also support a new system of honours which makes no mention of
the former empire. ?Although the empire will always be a part of our
history and heritage I see no point in continuing to celebrate it as
if it still existed. ?There is no insult or dishonour to previous
recipients of the various 'Empire' medals since there is no need to
abolish or rename previous honours, just create some new ones for
future recipients. ?Like Edward VII did in 1902.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So what would you choose as (a) the new name for the Imperial War
Museum and (b) the replacement for the Order of the British Empire?

Just curious!

I see no need to change names for change's sake, and since honours are
archaic and pertaining to history by their very nature (e.g. very few
women and even fewer men wear garters in the 21st Century!), and
nobody but a fool could forget, with the ritualistic self-flagellation
indulged by the intelligentsia in the media and elsewhere that the
British Empire was the most evil concept since Original Sin, perhaps
it does no harm to keep us all in mind of that most ignominious period
of our history lest we should ever be tempted to repeat it!

Just joking!

Marc.

A sobering thought! Like you I dislike change purely for the sake of
it and see no point in changing the name of the Imperial War Museum
since, unlike the War Graves Commission, no other countries are
responsible for running it.

Changing the honours system would be worth it since these awards are
supposed to be given in recognition of the great things people are
doing now. They are devalued by their association with our vanished
imperial past, as well as by political sleaze, but that is another
subject off-topic for this news group.

London Transport museum
 

London Transport museum
 

Given that London is a major international tourist destination, and
having noticed many tourists staring in bewilderment at the line
diagrams in the trains, I think it's likely that many passengers do
appreciate being told the next station name in advance. There are many
examples of over-provision in announcements, but this isn't one of them.

But if you're going somewhere, do you just get on a train and hope
someone will announce where you've got to get off? Whenever I've been
somewhere I've researched in a guide book or online to find the
nearest station. It's rather like announcing where you can change for
other lines, surely you'd plan your journey beforehand and work out
yourself where you've got to change.

London Transport museum
 

On Feb 26, 10:08 am, "Joe Patrick"
wrote:
Given that London is a major international tourist destination, and
having noticed many tourists staring in bewilderment at the line
diagrams in the trains, I think it's likely that many passengers do
appreciate being told the next station name in advance. There are many
examples of over-provision in announcements, but this isn't one of them.

But if you're going somewhere, do you just get on a train and hope
someone will announce where you've got to get off? Whenever I've been
somewhere I've researched in a guide book or online to find the
nearest station. It's rather like announcing where you can change for
other lines, surely you'd plan your journey beforehand and work out
yourself where you've got to change.



Or, looking at it another way, if you didn't know where any of the
lines went without an announcement, it wouldn't be any use to be told
that you could change to one of them, because you wouldn't know if it
took you where you wanted to go.

I can't see any point in any of the announcements, apart from the ones
reminding you that the next station is closed and other variations
from the published service.

Another thought is that if the people who are presumed to most need
the announcements are foreign tourists, a muffled announcement of a
station name that they possibly don't know how to pronounce is useless
anyway. When I'm in a foreign city, even one where I can use school
French, I find announcements completely useless and have to rely on
diagrams. Even if I can make out the station name, I don't know what
they are saying about it.

London Transport museum
 

On Feb 26, 3:42 am, "John Rowland"
wrote:
wrote:

(a) the new name for the Imperial War Museum

National War Museum...

and (b) the replacement for the Order of the British Empire?

Order of the British Nation.

I was so busy pontificating I forgot to answer Marc's question (maybe
I should go into politics). OBN sounds ok to me. Order of British
Excellence was also suggested by a parliamentary select committee in
2004. Alternatively why not widen the membership of some of the
various other archaic Orders (Order of Merit, Order of St. George, the
Psychedelic Garter etc) which have been traditionally reserved for
small numbers of the aristocracy & military? People might complain
that "it isn't the same" - but that is the point.

London Transport museum
 

On 26 Feb, 03:42, "John Rowland"
wrote:
wrote:

(a) the new name for the Imperial War Museum

National War Museum...

and (b) the replacement for the Order of the British Empire?

Order of the British Nation.

Shurely "Order of the Brown Nose"?

James.

London Transport museum
 

On 25 Feb, 21:43, " wrote:
So what would you choose as (a) the new name for the Imperial War
Museum and (b) the replacement for the Order of the British Empire?

I say leave the Imperial War Museum alone. These days they'd set up a
focus group and call it Consignia. And if you think I'm joking, have
you seen the replacement Birmingham Museum of Science and Industry?

James.

London Transport museum
 

Joe Patrick wrote:
Given that London is a major international tourist destination, and
having noticed many tourists staring in bewilderment at the line
diagrams in the trains, I think it's likely that many passengers do
appreciate being told the next station name in advance. There are
many examples of over-provision in announcements, but this isn't
one of them.

But if you're going somewhere, do you just get on a train and hope
someone will announce where you've got to get off? Whenever I've
been somewhere I've researched in a guide book or online to find the
nearest station. It's rather like announcing where you can change
for other lines, surely you'd plan your journey beforehand and work
out yourself where you've got to change.

Joe: you're a railwayman yourself, I believe, so of course you would
carry out that research without a second thought, and so would I. But
there are many, many people who visit London and find it all rather
confusing, and are genuinely anxious about whether they are on the right
train, where they have to change etc.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

London Transport museum
 

MIG wrote:
On Feb 26, 10:08 am, "Joe Patrick"
wrote:
Given that London is a major international tourist destination,
and having noticed many tourists staring in bewilderment at the
line diagrams in the trains, I think it's likely that many
passengers do appreciate being told the next station name in
advance. There are many examples of over-provision in
announcements, but this isn't one of them.

But if you're going somewhere, do you just get on a train and hope
someone will announce where you've got to get off? Whenever I've
been somewhere I've researched in a guide book or online to find
the nearest station. It's rather like announcing where you can
change for other lines, surely you'd plan your journey beforehand
and work out yourself where you've got to change.

Or, looking at it another way, if you didn't know where any of the
lines went without an announcement, it wouldn't be any use to be
told that you could change to one of them, because you wouldn't
know if it took you where you wanted to go.

I can't see any point in any of the announcements, apart from the
ones reminding you that the next station is closed and other
variations from the published service.

I found it helpful to be told that Notting Hill Gate was the next stop
today, having been engrossed in Metro for several stations. Seriously,
all you are saying is that you know your way around without any help.
Thousands aren't so fortunate.

Another thought is that if the people who are presumed to most need
the announcements are foreign tourists, a muffled announcement of a
station name that they possibly don't know how to pronounce is
useless anyway. When I'm in a foreign city, even one where I can
use school French, I find announcements completely useless and have
to rely on diagrams. Even if I can make out the station name, I
don't know what they are saying about it.

But your average foreign tourist here speaks and understands English
rather better than most Englishmen abroad understand the local language.
I agree that muffled announcements aren't much help, even if you do
understand the language. But the latest LU examples (District and
Piccadilly) are actually very clear.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

London Transport museum
 

On Feb 26, 4:19 pm, "Richard J." wrote:
MIG wrote:
On Feb 26, 10:08 am, "Joe Patrick"
wrote:
Given that London is a major international tourist destination,
and having noticed many tourists staring in bewilderment at the
line diagrams in the trains, I think it's likely that many
passengers do appreciate being told the next station name in
advance. There are many examples of over-provision in
announcements, but this isn't one of them.

But if you're going somewhere, do you just get on a train and hope
someone will announce where you've got to get off? Whenever I've
been somewhere I've researched in a guide book or online to find
the nearest station. It's rather like announcing where you can
change for other lines, surely you'd plan your journey beforehand
and work out yourself where you've got to change.

Or, looking at it another way, if you didn't know where any of the
lines went without an announcement, it wouldn't be any use to be
told that you could change to one of them, because you wouldn't
know if it took you where you wanted to go.

I can't see any point in any of the announcements, apart from the
ones reminding you that the next station is closed and other
variations from the published service.

I found it helpful to be told that Notting Hill Gate was the next stop
today, having been engrossed in Metro for several stations. Seriously,
all you are saying is that you know your way around without any help.
Thousands aren't so fortunate.



I am saying nothing of the sort. I thought I was quite clear that I
thought that these kind of announcements don't help.

Let's imagine that I am in Paris. I get on a train on Line 4 without
knowing what line my destination station is on or where to change.

How would it help me to hear an announcement that I am at a station
with a French name where I can change to line 6?

In real life, I would have found out what line my destination was on
and where to change, and I would recognise the place from seeing its
name written on a station sign, having looked at the diagram and
noticed as I passed the stop before.

I would generally be much more attentive to diagrams and passing
stations in Paris than I am in London, because I don't know my way
about. I would not make much attempt at understanding any
announcements.

London Transport museum
 

On Feb 26, 3:26�pm, "James" wrote:
On 25 Feb, 21:43, " wrote:

So what would you choose as (a) the *new name for the Imperial War
Museum and (b) the replacement for the Order of the British Empire?

I say leave the Imperial War Museum alone. These days they'd set up a
focus group and call it Consignia. And if you think I'm joking, have
you seen the replacement Birmingham Museum of Science and Industry?

James.

James,

I am in agreement with you. I travelled past Imperial College
(Paddington) today and was reminded that this institution, on its
divorce from the University of London had the prime opportunity to
"update" its name, and has chosen not to do so. Good for them!

As for those keen on renaming honours, can someone suggest why, given
that she died well over a Century ago, the Victoria Cross is not
renamed, for example, the Elizabeth Cross? (As for precedents, the
Albert Medal and Edward Medal were both subsumed into the George Cross
in 1950s). However, I don't think that anyone is seriously suggesting
that this should happen, because the name is far too valuable and
historic. I would suggest exactly the same of the Order of the British
Empire. By all means devise a new honour (e.g. O.B. - the Order of
Blair should of course be given to all the brown-nosed scum who have
"loaned" his party money), but I would prefer that historic Orders are
left alone.

Those that are the most treasured, of course, the Garter, Thistle and
Royal Victorian Orders are most treasured because they are untainted
by political corruption, being in the personal gift of the Sovereign -
as I believe should all others.

Marc.

London Transport museum
 

On Feb 26, 5:41 pm, " wrote:
On Feb 26, 3:26?pm, "James" wrote:

On 25 Feb, 21:43, " wrote:

So what would you choose as (a) the ?new name for the Imperial War
Museum and (b) the replacement for the Order of the British Empire?

I say leave the Imperial War Museum alone. These days they'd set up a
focus group and call it Consignia. And if you think I'm joking, have
you seen the replacement Birmingham Museum of Science and Industry?

James.

James,

I am in agreement with you. I travelled past Imperial College
(Paddington) today and was reminded that this institution, on its
divorce from the University of London had the prime opportunity to
"update" its name, and has chosen not to do so. Good for them!

As for those keen on renaming honours, can someone suggest why, given
that she died well over a Century ago, the Victoria Cross is not
renamed, for example, the Elizabeth Cross? (As for precedents, the
Albert Medal and Edward Medal were both subsumed into the George Cross
in 1950s). However, I don't think that anyone is seriously suggesting
that this should happen, because the name is far too valuable and
historic. I would suggest exactly the same of the Order of the British
Empire. By all means devise a new honour (e.g. O.B. - the Order of
Blair should of course be given to all the brown-nosed scum who have
"loaned" his party money), but I would prefer that historic Orders are
left alone.

Those that are the most treasured, of course, the Garter, Thistle and
Royal Victorian Orders are most treasured because they are untainted
by political corruption, being in the personal gift of the Sovereign -
as I believe should all others.

Marc.

No need to rename or abolish honours named in honour of people, just
the ones named after a defunct political institution (the Empire)
which is no longer celebrated. Perhaps you're right about not
tainting the psychedelic garter etc; but I think historic orders would
best be left alone if we left them to history and stopped awarding
them. Time to start something new - how about a 'Diana' award for
being nice.

London Transport museum
 

John Rowland wrote:
wrote:
(a) the new name for the Imperial War Museum

National War Museum...

But which nation - or should the Commonwealth stuff go?

and (b) the replacement for the Order of the British Empire?

Order of the British Nation.

Could that risk getting bogged down in the concept of a "nation" as a
"people", with its ethnic/linguistic connotations? It's not a problem
with Empire, which is purely a bit anachronistic.

More practically, if the honours were abolished or given a more
touchy-feely name, it would mean that the newspapers would have nothing
to moan about during the slow news period around the new year.
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

London Transport museum
 

MIG wrote:
On Feb 26, 4:19 pm, "Richard J."
wrote:
MIG wrote:
On Feb 26, 10:08 am, "Joe Patrick"
wrote:
Given that London is a major international tourist destination,
and having noticed many tourists staring in bewilderment at the
line diagrams in the trains, I think it's likely that many
passengers do appreciate being told the next station name in
advance. There are many examples of over-provision in
announcements, but this isn't one of them.

But if you're going somewhere, do you just get on a train and
hope someone will announce where you've got to get off? Whenever
I've been somewhere I've researched in a guide book or online to
find the nearest station. It's rather like announcing where you
can change for other lines, surely you'd plan your journey
beforehand and work out yourself where you've got to change.

Or, looking at it another way, if you didn't know where any of the
lines went without an announcement, it wouldn't be any use to be
told that you could change to one of them, because you wouldn't
know if it took you where you wanted to go.

I can't see any point in any of the announcements, apart from the
ones reminding you that the next station is closed and other
variations from the published service.

I found it helpful to be told that Notting Hill Gate was the next
stop today, having been engrossed in Metro for several stations.
Seriously, all you are saying is that you know your way around
without any help. Thousands aren't so fortunate.

I am saying nothing of the sort. I thought I was quite clear that I
thought that these kind of announcements don't help.

You made it clear that the announcements don't help *you*.

Let's imagine that I am in Paris. I get on a train on Line 4
without knowing what line my destination station is on or where to
change.

How would it help me to hear an announcement that I am at a station
with a French name where I can change to line 6?

Barbès Rochechouart, in fact, and of course it wouldn't help if you
hadn't done *any* preparation.

In real life, I would have found out what line my destination was on
and where to change, and I would recognise the place from seeing its
name written on a station sign, having looked at the diagram and
noticed as I passed the stop before.

Yes, yes, we know you understand all these things and are terribly well
organised and intelligent, but please don't assume that all visitors or
occasional passengers are like that. My experience is that many people
look at the Tube map at the start of the journey, and can see that they
need, say, the Piccadilly, then the Bakerloo, but may not notice or
remember the name of the interchange station. I've also seen many
people who may manage eventually to work things out from the Tube map,
but do appreciate having things confirmed by announcements or fellow
passengers.

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

London Transport museum
 

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

(a) the new name for the Imperial War Museum

National War Museum...

and (b) the replacement for the Order of the British Empire?

Order of the British Nation.


Other Bu**ers Efforts surely?

Paul S

London Transport museum
 

MIG wrote:

Let's imagine that I am in Paris. I get on a train on Line 4 without
knowing what line my destination station is on or where to change.

How would it help me to hear an announcement that I am at a station
with a French name where I can change to line 6?

It would help if you were blind or visually impaired. A lot.
--
Michael Hoffman

London Transport museum
 

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007, Arthur Figgis wrote:

John Rowland wrote:
wrote:
(a) the new name for the Imperial War Museum

National War Museum...

But which nation - or should the Commonwealth stuff go?

The British Museum do not seem to have had a problem with this!

and (b) the replacement for the Order of the British Empire?

Order of the British Nation.

Could that risk getting bogged down in the concept of a "nation" as a
"people", with its ethnic/linguistic connotations?

There are plenty of Nation or National this-that-and-the-others that don't
incur this problem; National Express, Test The Nation, National
Curriculum, Video Nation, Royal National Lifeboat Institution, National
Front, Terry Nation, etc. I don't think most people draw a distinction
between 'nation', 'state', and 'country'.

That said, i think 'Order of the British Nation' sounds a bit silly (and
as James observed, the acronym has already been taken by Private Eye!).
'Order of Britain' would, IMHO, be better.

It's not a problem with Empire, which is purely a bit anachronistic.

Not purely - it's also a painful reminder to some people. It's ever so
slightly like having a theme park in Germany called Himmlerspassland or
something.

Hey, is that Godwin's law i can hear kicking in? Does that mean this
thread's over?

More practically, if the honours were abolished or given a more
touchy-feely name, it would mean that the newspapers would have nothing
to moan about during the slow news period around the new year.

Do not underestimate the resourcefulness of journalists.

tom

--
They didn't have any answers - they just wanted weed and entitlement.

London Transport museum
 

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007, Michael Hoffman wrote:

MIG wrote:

Let's imagine that I am in Paris. I get on a train on Line 4 without
knowing what line my destination station is on or where to change.

How would it help me to hear an announcement that I am at a station
with a French name where I can change to line 6?

It would help if you were blind or visually impaired. A lot.

How exactly? May i suggest you read the original question again?

tom

--
They didn't have any answers - they just wanted weed and entitlement.

London Transport museum
 

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007, Michael Hoffman wrote:

MIG wrote:

Let's imagine that I am in Paris. I get on a train on Line 4 without
knowing what line my destination station is on or where to change.

How would it help me to hear an announcement that I am at a station
with a French name where I can change to line 6?

It would help if you were blind or visually impaired. A lot.

How exactly? May i suggest you read the original question again?

I sometimes get on a train without knowing the exact details of the rest
of my journey, figuring them out en route. I figure them out on the
train. A visually impaired person could do the same with a braille map.
I believe you can order a braille map of the Paris Metro from the
Association Valentin Hauey.

The case where the person knows that the destination station is on line
6 but doesn't know the interchange point is much more likely I think. In
this case an announcement would be as useful as the interchange points
being on strip maps.

This branch of the thread was started by Keith Raeburn complaining that
"announcing every station name in advance, despite everybody coping
perfectly well without LU doing so before" was "over-provision." It
should now be obvious that this is not true.
--
Michael Hoffman

London Transport museum
 

On 26 Feb 2007 09:41:32 -0800, "
wrote:

I am in agreement with you. I travelled past Imperial College
(Paddington) today and was reminded that this institution, on its
divorce from the University of London had the prime opportunity to
"update" its name, and has chosen not to do so. Good for them!

(a) The secession is not totally complete yet;
(b) The current Rector of IC[*] has already committed one re-branding;
I expect the new one (due later this year IIRC) to go through another
one.

You may, of course, have seen deprecated signage (dark blue with the
crest) that is yet to be replaced. The new brand is, of course,
ridiculous.
[*] The Rector has banned such an acronym, but I have always been of
the opinion that he can call it what he wants, but he can't make me
call it anything other than what I want.

London Transport museum
 

On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 08:05:19PM +0000, Michael Hoffman wrote:

The case where the person knows that the destination station is on line
6 but doesn't know the interchange point is much more likely I think. In
this case an announcement would be as useful as the interchange points
being on strip maps.

Nonsense. If all I know is that my destination is on the Picadilly
line, I'm not going to get on a random train at (say) Victoria) and hope
it's going in the right direction. That way lies Brixton and Upminster
and other forms of depravity. No, I'm going to look at the damned map.

That said, I do like announcements like "the next station is Green Park"
because it tells me to extract myself from whatever trash sci-fi I'm
reading that day.

--
David Cantrell | Nth greatest programmer in the world

Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human.
At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear
shoes, bathe and not make messes in the house.
-- Robert A Heinlein

London Transport museum
 

David Cantrell wrote:
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 08:05:19PM +0000, Michael Hoffman wrote:

The case where the person knows that the destination station is on line
6 but doesn't know the interchange point is much more likely I think. In
this case an announcement would be as useful as the interchange points
being on strip maps.

Nonsense. If all I know is that my destination is on the Picadilly
line, I'm not going to get on a random train at (say) Victoria) and hope
it's going in the right direction. That way lies Brixton and Upminster
and other forms of depravity. No, I'm going to look at the damned map.

Yes, but I didn't going to say what *you* were going to do. You probably
don't need a message telling you to take your belongings when you leave
the train either. The announcements aren't designed for David Cantrell.

In any case, it is easy enough to know which direction to go at the
start (through instructions or otherwise) but forget which station you
want to change at en route. I know when I waas initially unfamiliar with
the Tube, I got on a train in the right direction but then sometimes
forgot my interchange station. The difference between a blind person and
me is that I could still look it up on the strip map inside the train.
--
Michael Hoffman

London Transport museum
 

On Feb 26, 7:09�pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007, Arthur Figgis wrote:
John Rowland wrote:
wrote:
(a) the *new name for the Imperial War Museum

National War Museum...

But which nation - or should the Commonwealth stuff go?

The British Museum do not seem to have had a problem with this!

and (b) the replacement for the Order of the British Empire?

Order of the British Nation.

Could that risk getting bogged down in the concept of a "nation" as a
"people", with its ethnic/linguistic connotations?

There are plenty of Nation or National this-that-and-the-others that don't
incur this problem; National Express, Test The Nation, National
Curriculum, Video Nation, Royal National Lifeboat Institution, National
Front, Terry Nation, etc. I don't think most people draw a distinction
between 'nation', 'state', and 'country'.

That said, i think 'Order of the British Nation' sounds a bit silly (and
as James observed, the acronym has already been taken by Private Eye!).
'Order of Britain' would, IMHO, be better.

It's not a problem with Empire, which is purely a bit anachronistic.

Not purely - it's also a painful reminder to some people. It's ever so
slightly like having a theme park in Germany called Himmlerspassland or
something.

Hey, is that Godwin's law i can hear kicking in? Does that mean this
thread's over?

More practically, if the honours were abolished or given a more
touchy-feely name, it would mean that the newspapers would have nothing
to moan about during the slow news period around the new year.

Do not underestimate the resourcefulness of journalists.

tom

--
They didn't have any answers - they just wanted weed and entitlement.

Tom,

To equate the British Empire in any way with Nazi Germany is an insult
to the millions who served the Empire, in war and peace, and whose
sense of duty ensured that, for example, India was united and governed
with the smallest per capita civil service ever heard of.

Why should one man's "painful reminder" outweigh another man's "proud
heritage"? I write as someone who is a descendant of one of the
"forced migrations" which the do-gooders might regard as a "painful
reminder" best avoided of which you write, but I do not see it that
way: if that had not happened, I would not be here today. There was
good and bad about the British Empire (as with all countries'
histories) but that is not a reason to erase its memory, or for those
of us who are actually proud of that history, and feel that we have
benefited from it, to feel ashamed of either fact.

So, would you also rename Trafalgar Square, Waterloo, Victoria, King
George and Canary Wharf and Canada Water Stations (and hundreds of
other place names) just because their origins might be questionable
"painful reminders" of our Imperial past?

Marc.