HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Jul 18, 7:57*pm, Arthur Figgis wrote:
Lots of places have signs but no distinct government. I think I've seen
"England" on signs, and even "London" is rather complex concept to pin
down as a specific "thing".

England exists, legally, though - e.g. the Department of [English]
Health.

London is easy: the Corporation's area is the City of London, the GLA
area is Greater London, and there isn't anything else.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 17:49:21 -0700 (PDT), John B
wrote in misc.transport.urban-transit:

On Jul 18, 7:57*pm, Arthur Figgis wrote:
Lots of places have signs but no distinct government. I think I've seen
"England" on signs, and even "London" is rather complex concept to pin
down as a specific "thing".

England exists, legally, though - e.g. the Department of [English]
Health.

London is easy: the Corporation's area is the City of London, the GLA
area is Greater London, and there isn't anything else.

Does the GLA cover all of urbanized area and adjacent suburbs?

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 15:05:11 +0100, "Basil Jet"
wrote:

John B wrote:

(for m.t.u-t'ers, Middlesex hasn't existed for 44 years)

Middlesex exists, it just isn't recognised by the national government.

Tell the Land Registry, they have a lot of titles in the MX number
series with descriptions using "Middlesex" and many records depend on
information derived from the Middlesex Deeds Registry (closed 1938).

and the Information Commissioner's Office :-
"ICO prosecutes Middlesex law firm" (Press Release 3 Mar 2009)
[http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documen...not030309.pdf]


http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&...0.3 2,,2,0.55

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&...5. 18,,2,0.28

I understand that these signs were put up by Enfield Council less than 15
years ago. I'm not aware of any others.

There are similar signs in Harrow and other burghs on the Middlesex
border. AFAIR they are officially tourist signs erected in
co-operation with one of the county's historical associations. If they
weren't erected there would not be a county boundary sign as they were
IME never preceded or accompanied by any signs indicating the Greater
London boundary.

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 21:01:10 -0500, Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 17:49:21 -0700 (PDT), John B
wrote in misc.transport.urban-transit:

On Jul 18, 7:57Â*pm, Arthur Figgis wrote:
Lots of places have signs but no distinct government. I think I've seen
"England" on signs, and even "London" is rather complex concept to pin
down as a specific "thing".

England exists, legally, though - e.g. the Department of [English]
Health.

Not so simple, the DH deals with English health matters which are
otherwise devolved to the other countries but it also deals with other
matters (e.g. European Health Insurance Card) as a United Kingdom
entity.

London is easy: the Corporation's area is the City of London, the GLA
area is Greater London, and there isn't anything else.

There is. The Inns of Court are also local authorities for many
purposes, e.g. :-
" “district�, in relation to a local authority in Greater London,
means a London borough, the City of London, the Inner Temple or the
Middle Temple, as the case may be; " [s1(1) Public Health Act 1936]

There are also areas outwith the capital (e.g. Hampstead Heath, Queens
Park) which are its responsibility, not that of the containing local
authority; this extends to having their own constabulary patrolling
Hampstead Heath.

Does the GLA cover all of urbanized area and adjacent suburbs?

Why should it ? The areas surrounding Greater London have their own
local authorities.

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 11:15:31 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote:

On 18 July, 18:55, David Hansen
wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 15:05:11 +0100 someone who may be "Basil Jet"
wrote this:-

Middlesex exists, it just isn't recognised by the national government.

There is still a cricket club with that name, a university and the
post office know where it is.

This where someone usually pops up saying that the current boundaries
are just "administrative boundaries", implying that past
administrative boundaries somehow delimit real places in a different
way.

They are all administrative boundaries. I tend to think that current
boundaries and authorities are the only ones worth worrying about,
because they are current.

Don't get a job dealing with land or associated legal documentation
where many of the related entities have not been "current" for many
years.

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

Bruce wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 07:17:38 +0100, Martin Edwards
wrote:

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:41:06 on
Fri, 17 Jul 2009, Recliner remarked:
Leave The Market to sort everything out in everyone's best interests.
The Market is a benign force for Good, unlike Regulation, which is
Evil.
So you'd prefer that all NXEC's customers lost their money (tickets
bought in advance etc) if they cease trading?
Obviously that won't happen,
Because it's regulated, and not a free market.

but I wonder what the exact mechanism for the transfer will be? Will
the new DfT ECML operating company simply take over NXEC, complete
with all its staff, leases, assets, contracts, etc, or will there be
some messy transfer of all of these to the new company?
It seemed to work OK when GNER handed back the keys.
Until the next company screwed up too. Say what you like about
Stalin...........



Are you sure you didn't mean Mussolini?

I was adapting it.

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

Fig wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 07:21:49 +0100, Martin Edwards
wrote:

Basil Jet wrote:
Tim Fenton wrote:
"Paul Terry" wrote in message
...
The only feature of London minicabs which is designed specifically
to serve
the interest of the public rather than the interest of the minicab
drivers/bosses is the fact that the drivers are verified to have
been convicted of no rapes since coming to this country.
There's more to it than that. Vehicles have to be MOT'd every six
months rather than every year, drivers have to have a medical
certificate supplied by their GP and they have to prove that they
have the appropriate and current insurance for public hire.
Okay, but all of these things are to prevent the minicab driver from
ending or ruining the life of the customer, not to ensure that he
actually provides a service to the customer or the city. For instance
a minicab office which tells a tourist that such and such is miles
away when it's really around the corner, and then charges the tourist
a fortune for a circuitous ride, would be in no danger of losing its
"PCO approved" status.

And they have to have The Knowledge ...
Minicabs are not required to have The Knowledge, or a satnav or even
a map.

A kind taxi driver in London, where I am not resident, once told me
the way to the street I needed, which was in walking distance. I
doubt whether the response from a minicab driver would have been the
same.

His actions may not have been born out of kindness, Martin. 'Black Cab'
drivers are not allowed to decline fares (within certain maximums.) They
are, understandably, reluctant to accept a short journey if, for
example, they have just spent a long time waiting to get to the front of
a long taxi rank. I bet it would have been a different story if you had
hailed him on the street.

Oh well. :-(

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

Basil Jet wrote:
Martin Edwards wrote:
A kind taxi driver in London, where I am not resident, once told me
the way to the street I needed, which was in walking distance. I
doubt whether the response from a minicab driver would have been the
same.

If he was on the front of a rank which he had taken some time to progress
through, then encouraging you to walk was self-interest rather than
altruism.


He was in slow traffic.

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

John B wrote:
On Jul 17, 8:52 pm, Bruce wrote:
There is a huge variation around the country in the local authorities'
requirements for minicabs. I have a friend who use to run a minicab
business in Aylesbury, but now runs a similar business in Middlesex.

Time traveller, is he?

(for m.t.u-t'ers, Middlesex hasn't existed for 44 years)

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

Right. Yet people still give it as a postal address, even though you
are not supposed to give either district or county. Another favourite
is Kingston, Surrey. Oh no it isn't.

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

Basil Jet wrote:
John B wrote:
(for m.t.u-t'ers, Middlesex hasn't existed for 44 years)

Middlesex exists, it just isn't recognised by the national government.

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&...0.3 2,,2,0.55

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&...5. 18,,2,0.28

I understand that these signs were put up by Enfield Council less than 15
years ago. I'm not aware of any others.


Oh yeah, and it's also really part of the duchy of Burgundy.

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

Arthur Figgis wrote:
John B wrote:
On Jul 18, 3:05 pm, "Basil Jet"
wrote:
John B wrote:

(for m.t.u-t'ers, Middlesex hasn't existed for 44 years)
Middlesex exists, it just isn't recognised by the national government.

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&...7,-0.148702&sp...

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&...5,-0.138509&sp...

I understand that these signs were put up by Enfield Council less
than 15
years ago. I'm not aware of any others.

Seems unlikely: councils aren't normally allowed to put up signs
conveying false information.

Lots of places have signs but no distinct government. I think I've seen
"England" on signs, and even "London" is rather complex concept to pin
down as a specific "thing".

The late and unlamented Humbers*de put up signs saying "England's newest
county", but presumably the unloved concept was no different in age to
Avon etc.

West Midlands, on the other hand, still exists. It does not have a
council, but it does have county agencies with members indirectly
elected from the city and borough councils. The effective and popular
Centro transit authority is one. Oh, Mr Cameron, I didn't notice you there.

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

John B wrote:
On Jul 18, 7:57 pm, Arthur Figgis wrote:
Lots of places have signs but no distinct government. I think I've seen
"England" on signs, and even "London" is rather complex concept to pin
down as a specific "thing".

England exists, legally, though - e.g. the Department of [English]
Health.

London is easy: the Corporation's area is the City of London, the GLA
area is Greater London, and there isn't anything else.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

Thanks, mate. I get so tired of telling people that Watford is not in
London, or, conversely, a motorway service area.

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

Free Lunch wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 17:49:21 -0700 (PDT), John B
wrote in misc.transport.urban-transit:

On Jul 18, 7:57 pm, Arthur Figgis wrote:
Lots of places have signs but no distinct government. I think I've seen
"England" on signs, and even "London" is rather complex concept to pin
down as a specific "thing".
England exists, legally, though - e.g. the Department of [English]
Health.

London is easy: the Corporation's area is the City of London, the GLA
area is Greater London, and there isn't anything else.

Does the GLA cover all of urbanized area and adjacent suburbs?

No: see the reply which should come in above. And I think you mean
adjacent towns.

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

David Hansen wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 15:05:11 +0100 someone who may be "Basil Jet"
wrote this:-

Middlesex exists, it just isn't recognised by the national government.

There is still a cricket club with that name, a university and the
post office know where it is.




The post office know where it is because they have to. You are not
supposed to put /any/ counties, never mind defunct ones, but people
simply do not pay attention.

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On 19 July, 04:57, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 11:15:31 -0700 (PDT), MIG





wrote:
On 18 July, 18:55, David Hansen
wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 15:05:11 +0100 someone who may be "Basil Jet"
wrote this:-

Middlesex exists, it just isn't recognised by the national government..

There is still a cricket club with that name, a university and the
post office know where it is.

This where someone usually pops up saying that the current boundaries
are just "administrative boundaries", implying that past
administrative boundaries somehow delimit real places in a different
way.

They are all administrative boundaries. *I tend to think that current
boundaries and authorities are the only ones worth worrying about,
because they are current.

Don't get a job dealing with land or associated legal documentation
where many of the related entities have not been "current" for many
years.-

Any relevant powers will have been delegated elsewhere though, surely.

Many legal documents will have been signed by people who are dead, but
it's no good asking dead people for authority to do anything.

As for place names, down my way a lot of stuff is named after St
John. Does this prove that he still exists?

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

"Mizter T" wrote in message



To an extent, Middlesex exists as a place in the sense that people
think it exists - in that sense it's much like any other place name.
There's all those many things named after Middlesex of course -
there's Middlesex County Cricket Club for example, and there's also
North Middlesex and West Middlesex hospitals (and there was (Central)
Middlesex Hospital, now merged with UCH). Middlesex also continued to
exist as a postal county up until the Royal Mail abandoned the notion
of postal counties, so properly addressed letters included Middlesex
on the last line (this issue is somewhat complicated as a good chunk
of metropolitan Middlesex was already in the London postal district).

I'm still forced to use Middlesex as part of my address by Web forms
that have a mandatory 'County' field.

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Jul 19, 1:49*am, John B wrote:

On Jul 18, 7:57*pm, Arthur Figgis wrote:

Lots of places have signs but no distinct government. I think I've seen
"England" on signs, and even "London" is rather complex concept to pin
down as a specific "thing".

England exists, legally, though - e.g. the Department of [English]
Health.

Rubbish - see Charles Ellson's answer. The Department of Health has a
whole number of UK-wide responsibilities as well as its (primary)
responsibility for healthcare in England and Wales.

England does of course exist legally - though there are a number of
areas where a reference to England is actually an abbreviated
reference to England *and* Wales (e.g. reference to contracts being
enforced according to "English law" in "English courts"). In the past
one could have said that constitutionally Wales was basically part of
England, but with devolution this description would be less apt.


London is easy: the Corporation's area is the City of London, the GLA
area is Greater London, and there isn't anything else.

Yes there is. There's the London postal district - and there's a whole
number of places within Greater London that are outwith the London
postal district (e.g. in the south east fringes there's lots of places
with "Bromley" as the post town and hence BRx postcodes - back when
the postal county was properly included as part of the address, these
places would have had Kent in their address too, and many people still
continue to include it).

Sewardstone, near Epping Forest, meanwhile is outside Greater London
but has a London postcode - E4.

The London telephone dialling code 020 covers a larger area than the
London postal district, including many places outside of Greater
London. Meanwhile other places on the edges of Greater London have
dialling codes other than 020 London.

The Met Police District used to cover an area larger than Greater
London, but this was rationalised when the GLA was created and these
areas were transferred to the appropriate home counties police force.

The London fares (aka Travelcard) zones of course cover an area larger
than Greater London - and that's the case even if we're only talking
about the 'proper' zones 1-6.

I think there's a number of other examples where an official or quasi-
official body of one sort or another defines London in different ways.

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Jul 19, 7:52*am, Martin Edwards wrote:

David Hansen wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 15:05:11 +0100 someone who may be "Basil Jet"
wrote this:-

Middlesex exists, it just isn't recognised by the national government.

There is still a cricket club with that name, a university and the
post office know where it is.

The post office know where it is because they have to. *You are not
supposed to put /any/ counties, never mind defunct ones, but people
simply do not pay attention.

*Total nonsense* - postal counties are not required any more, but
nowhere do the Royal Mail state that they should not appear as part of
an address. The Royal Mail is happy for information that is "postally
not required" (their phrase) to appear in an address, just so long as
the required information is given clearly - that is house number or
name and street, and also post town and postcode. (Of course even if
one omits the post town then it'll get through, especially if one is
posting from within that post town - e.g. London.)

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Jul 19, 7:43*am, Martin Edwards wrote:

John B wrote:
On Jul 17, 8:52 pm, Bruce wrote:
There is a huge variation around the country in the local authorities'
requirements for minicabs. *I have a friend who use to run a minicab
business in Aylesbury, but now runs a similar business in Middlesex.

Time traveller, is he?

(for m.t.u-t'ers, Middlesex hasn't existed for 44 years)

Right. *Yet people still give it as a postal address, even though you
are not supposed to give either district or county. *Another favourite
is Kingston, Surrey. *Oh no it isn't.

Oh yes it can be.

As I said above, please show me where including former postal counties
is specifically prohibited by Royal Mail - any reference or cite from
an official document would do.

You won't be able to, because Royal Mail do not prohibit its usage,
nor indeed do they officially discourage it either.

The Royal Mail is happy for information that is "postally not
required" to appear as part of an address, just so long as the
required information is there as well.

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

In message , at 10:54:15 on
Sun, 19 Jul 2009, Recliner remarked:
I'm still forced to use Middlesex as part of my address by Web forms
that have a mandatory 'County' field.

I filled in a web form this morning that insisted I add a county to the
already declared NG postcode and Nottingham as "town" (the added irony
being that their own "get address from postcode" utility had left the
County blank!!)
--
Roland Perry

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

In message
, at
03:01:54 on Sun, 19 Jul 2009, Mizter T remarked:
*Total nonsense* - postal counties are not required any more

By whom? As recounted earlier, many web forms insist on a County.
--
Roland Perry

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Jul 19, 11:12*am, Roland Perry wrote:

In message
, at
03:01:54 on Sun, 19 Jul 2009, Mizter T remarked:

*Total nonsense* - postal counties are not required any more

By whom? As recounted earlier, many web forms insist on a County.

Good point. I was of course talking about what the Royal Mail
requires, as opposed to what software developers think the postal
system requires.

(Readers should also note that the above snippet of my message is
rather out of context to the whole point I was trying to convey, which
is that postal counties are not a required part of the address any
more, but are not 'prohibited' either.)

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Jul 19, 10:55*am, Mizter T wrote:
Lots of places have signs but no distinct government. I think I've seen
"England" on signs, and even "London" is rather complex concept to pin
down as a specific "thing".

England exists, legally, though - e.g. the Department of [English]
Health.

Rubbish - see Charles Ellson's answer. The Department of Health has a
whole number of UK-wide responsibilities as well as its (primary)
responsibility for healthcare in England and Wales.

ITYM 'in England', not 'in England and Wales'.

England does of course exist legally - though there are a number of
areas where a reference to England is actually an abbreviated
reference to England *and* Wales (e.g. reference to contracts being
enforced according to "English law" in "English courts"). In the past
one could have said that constitutionally Wales was basically part of
England, but with devolution this description would be less apt.

That's why I used the DoH as an example, as Englandandwales is a
single entity for most legal and non-devolved governmental purposes.

London is easy: the Corporation's area is the City of London, the GLA
area is Greater London, and there isn't anything else.

Yes there is. There's the London postal district - and there's a whole
number of places within Greater London that are outwith the London
postal district (e.g. in the south east fringes there's lots of places
with "Bromley" as the post town and hence BRx postcodes

Is there a London postal district? AIUI, there are various postcodes
that fall within Greater London, including E ones, BR ones, and so on.
Some of these sorting offices also cover areas outside London.

Similarly, I'm sure there are pizza establishments in outer London
that deliver to Hertfordshire, Essex, Surrey and Kent, and pizza
establishments in Herts, Essex, Surrey and Kent that deliver to
London.

- back when
the postal county was properly included as part of the address, these
places would have had Kent in their address too, and many people still
continue to include it).

And back when they were in Kent, they were in Kent. This isn't
relevant now.

Sewardstone, near Epping Forest, meanwhile is outside Greater London
but has a London postcode - E4.

It has a postcode that's primarily used within Greater London, yes.
I'm surprised by that actually - how did the PO's E district get so
far out...?

The London telephone dialling code 020 covers a larger area than the
London postal district, including many places outside of Greater
London. Meanwhile other places on the edges of Greater London have
dialling codes other than 020 London.

My father lives in India and has a +44 20 phone number. My office is
in Islington and has an +1 646 phone number. Are BT phone numbers even
still /supposed/ to be geographical?

The Met Police District used to cover an area larger than Greater
London, but this was rationalised when the GLA was created and these
areas were transferred to the appropriate home counties police force.

ie this isn't relevant now.

The London fares (aka Travelcard) zones of course cover an area larger
than Greater London - and that's the case even if we're only talking
about the 'proper' zones 1-6.

'The TfL zonal area'. Yes, OK, I'll give you that one, ish.

I think there's a number of other examples where an official or quasi-
official body of one sort or another defines London in different ways.

Examples (from the present day)?

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Jul 19, 4:54*am, Charles Ellson wrote:

[snip]

There are also areas outwith the capital (e.g. Hampstead Heath, Queens
Park) which are its responsibility, not that of the containing local
authority; this extends to having their own constabulary patrolling
Hampstead Heath.

There you're taking the City of London to be the "capital". There is
however no officially or legally defined "capital" of the UK, nor
indeed of England - so whether the capital is specifically the City of
London, or some wider notion of London, is itself something of a moot
point. I'd suggest that one could argue for a wider definition of
London being the capital 'by convention' (as opposed to 'by law'), not
least because government is centred on Westminster as opposed to the
square mile - however there's never going to be a definitive answer to
this, because "capital" is not defined.

The UK is not alone here - for example France has no (official)
capital city either.

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Jul 19, 11:07*am, Mizter T wrote:
On Jul 19, 7:43*am, Martin Edwards wrote:

John B wrote:
On Jul 17, 8:52 pm, Bruce wrote:
There is a huge variation around the country in the local authorities'
requirements for minicabs. *I have a friend who use to run a minicab
business in Aylesbury, but now runs a similar business in Middlesex.

Time traveller, is he?

(for m.t.u-t'ers, Middlesex hasn't existed for 44 years)

Right. *Yet people still give it as a postal address, even though you
are not supposed to give either district or county. *Another favourite
is Kingston, Surrey. *Oh no it isn't.

Oh yes it can be.

As I said above, please show me where including former postal counties
is specifically prohibited by Royal Mail - any reference or cite from
an official document would do.

You won't be able to, because Royal Mail do not prohibit its usage,
nor indeed do they officially discourage it either.

The Royal Mail is happy for information that is "postally not
required" to appear as part of an address, just so long as the
required information is there as well.

That's fairly ridiculous hair-splitting.

You're not *banned* from writing on an envelope "I love John
Prescott", or even "Postmen are lazy".

But you're not *supposed* to write them on an envelope as if they were
part of the address.

[as a side note, I utterly hate American-designed websites which
insist on you putting a county in the address field... especially the
ones that force you to pick from a list a county that doesn't
exist...]

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Jul 19, 10:54*am, "Recliner" wrote:
I'm still forced to use Middlesex as part of my address by Web forms
that have a mandatory 'County' field.

As in, they give you a drop-box that contains 'Middlesex' but not
'Greater London'? That's pretty ****poor of them, if so.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

In message
, at
03:32:10 on Sun, 19 Jul 2009, John B remarked:
My father lives in India and has a +44 20 phone number. My office is
in Islington and has an +1 646 phone number.

Are they VoIP?

Are BT phone numbers even still /supposed/ to be geographical?

If they are traditional landlines, then each exchange has a specific
area it covers. But it's been possible for a generation to get "out of
area" numbers if you paid enough.
--
Roland Perry

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

Mizter T wrote:

The London telephone dialling code 020 covers a larger area than the
London postal district, including many places outside of Greater
London. Meanwhile other places on the edges of Greater London have
dialling codes other than 020 London.

But try convincing many Londoners that the area code is 020, not 020x :-)

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

In message
, at
03:37:24 on Sun, 19 Jul 2009, John B remarked:
I utterly hate American-designed websites which
insist on you putting a county in the address field...

The one I encountered this morning is very likely to be UK-designed
website. We have ignorant developers here too :(
--
Roland Perry

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Jul 19, 11:57*am, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
03:32:10 on Sun, 19 Jul 2009, John B remarked:

My father lives in India and has a +44 20 phone number. My office is
in Islington and has an +1 646 phone number.

Are they VoIP?

Yup.

Are BT phone numbers even still /supposed/ to be geographical?

If they are traditional landlines, then each exchange has a specific
area it covers. But it's been possible for a generation to get "out of
area" numbers if you paid enough.

Haha, so there's no technical reason for having area codes any more,
but they force you to stick with the historical codes by default so
they can sting people on upgrades? Yup, that's the BT I know and love,
for fairly twisted values of 'love'.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

"Arthur Figgis" wrote in message
o.uk...
Mizter T wrote:

The London telephone dialling code 020 covers a larger area than the
London postal district, including many places outside of Greater
London. Meanwhile other places on the edges of Greater London have
dialling codes other than 020 London.

But try convincing many Londoners that the area code is 020, not 020x :-)

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

So, have 0171 and 0181 bitten the dust?

DW down under

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message
, at
03:37:24 on Sun, 19 Jul 2009, John B remarked:
I utterly hate American-designed websites which
insist on you putting a county in the address field...

The one I encountered this morning is very likely to be UK-designed
website. We have ignorant developers here too :(
--
Roland Perry

I've never enountered a US site demanding "County". City, State (from
drop-down list) and ZIP is the usual form.

DW down under

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Jul 19, 11:37*am, John B wrote:

On Jul 19, 11:07*am, Mizter T wrote:

On Jul 19, 7:43*am, Martin Edwards wrote:

John B wrote:
On Jul 17, 8:52 pm, Bruce wrote:
There is a huge variation around the country in the local authorities'
requirements for minicabs. *I have a friend who use to run a minicab
business in Aylesbury, but now runs a similar business in Middlesex.

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 02:55:10 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:

England does of course exist legally - though there are a number of
areas where a reference to England is actually an abbreviated
reference to England *and* Wales (e.g. reference to contracts being
enforced according to "English law" in "English courts"). In the past
one could have said that constitutionally Wales was basically part of
England, but with devolution this description would be less apt.


Wales was England's first colony.

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

"Mizter T" wrote

Also, like it or not, lots of people in the fringes of London in some
areas - e.g. parts of the London Borough of Bromley are a good example
- would give their address as Kent, and would furthermore identify
with Kent (and also as soft of being part of Kent), at least in a
number of ways - whilst also quite possibly identifying with London as
well. Some on the edges would likely recoil as being labelled
Londoners.

There is also a good practical reason for including the unnecessary county
in a postal address. Letters addressed to
CHISLEHURST
BR7 5xx
have not infrequently arrived late with a spurious Bristol postmark. This
does't seem to happen when they are addressed
CHISLEHURST Kent
BR7 5xx

There are also cases where two post towns in different parts of the country
share a name (Ashford, Richmond, etc). While the correct postcode does
differentiate, inclusion of the county name does reduce the risk of
misrouting.

Coming back on topic, National Rail, and BR before it, have over the years
identified the Ashford station between Feltham and Staines as Ashford
(Surrey) or Ashford (Middlesex), apparently switching backwards and forwards
between the two every few years. On the same line, St Margarets has switched
between (Middlesex) and (Greater London), while Rainham (Essex) seems to
have remained as such, although it is in Greater London,

Peter

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

In uk.railway Mizter T twisted the electrons to say:
Of course even if
one omits the post town then it'll get through, especially if one is
posting from within that post town - e.g. London.)

It's amazing what parts of the address can be omitted, and still have the
item reach the destination! My personal favourite was the letter which
had (something like) the following on it :-

Mr & Mrs Smith
The house with the white(?) door opposite the church
$VILLAGE
Incorrect, albeit not massively, postcode ...
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

"David Hansen" wrote

An example of a correct (fictional) address is

TFR
12 Main Street
Edinburgh
EH0 0EH

Incorrect (sorry). The Royal Mail give seven mistakes which can make a
postal address incorrect, of which one is 'Do not put the Post town in lower
case.'

The others a
Do not indent the address
Do not omit the name or building number
Do not punctuate
Do not use the words 'near' or 'by' (I suppose you have to if you are
sending something to Stoke by Clare or Stoke-by-Nayland)
Do not leave the Postcode incomplete
Do not underline or write anything beneath the Postcode.

Peter

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

In message
, at
07:33:45 on Sun, 19 Jul 2009, MIG
remarked:
Who sets your Council Tax is rather more real, in my opinion.

That's the Treasury, by various levers they can pull which in effect
pretty much determine what the local tax will be. That's a long term
disappointment, and not exactly how the system was supposed to work.

Local Income Tax, if it ever gets implemented, will inevitably suffer
the same problem.
--
Roland Perry

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

Alistair Gunn wrote:

It's amazing what parts of the address can be omitted, and still have
the item reach the destination! My personal favourite was the letter
which had (something like) the following on it :-

Mr & Mrs Smith
The house with the white(?) door opposite the church
$VILLAGE
Incorrect, albeit not massively, postcode ...

It's obviously here somewhere...
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&...,0.109177&z=14

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Jul 19, 2:53*pm, John B wrote:

On Jul 19, 2:03*pm, Mizter T wrote:

Is there a London postal district? AIUI, there are various postcodes
that fall within Greater London, including E ones, BR ones, and so on..
Some of these sorting offices also cover areas outside London.

You understand wrong - yes, there is a London postal district. It
consists of all postcodes that begin NW, N, E, SE and SW.

All other postcodes, e.g. BR (Bromley), CR (Croydon), IG (Ilford) are
emphatically *not* part of the London postal district.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_postal_district

Aha, thanks.

Similarly, I'm sure there are pizza establishments in outer London
that deliver to Hertfordshire, Essex, Surrey and Kent, and pizza
establishments in Herts, Essex, Surrey and Kent that deliver to
London.

Eh?

The fact that one of many delivery services organises its network in a
particular way, even if it's (for the time being) the biggest, doesn't
define government or geographical boundaries.

OK, though quite a few 'official things' depend upon the Royal Mail's
way of doing business. What's more, delivery companies that have no
interface with the Royal Mail at all still rely on the Royal Mail's
system - it's the de-facto official way of addressing things, even if
it isn't 'officially official'! (Thankfully I don't think we're going
to see DHL et al create a new system that requires people to have a
new 'DHL address'!)


And back when they were in Kent, they were in Kent. This isn't
relevant now.

No - the official Royal Mail requirement to include postal counties
continued past the creation of Greater London. I'll try and find the
date when the requirement was dropped.

Yes, I was aware of that - I expressed it badly above. First they
stopped being in Kent, then a delivery company stopped forcing people
to write their location incorrectly. Now neither of those things
happens, although as you've mentioned upthread people are allowed to
write their location incorrectly if they choose.

But again, what makes it "incorrect"? The Royal Mail has "postally
required" information, but they don't decree addresses that include
extra "postally not required" information to be incorrect.

On the back of my driving licence's paper counterpart is the following
text:
"The address which appears on your licence is the Post Office
preferred format and may not be identical to the address given on your
application form."

(Let's read "Post Office" as being "Royal Mail" - not least because
the Royal Mail used to be a component part of the "Post Office" - a
government corporation - before becoming the absurd Consignia, then
changed again to "Royal Mail Group". Actually it's even more complex
than that but I digress!)

The point is that it speaks of a "preferred format", as opposed to a
"correct format".

And my overall point is that Royal Mail do not consider the inclusion
of postal counties, nor of other information such as a name of the
locality, to be incorrect - people who use it are therefore not
writing their location incorrectly, as you state.

I might well be being very anally retentive on this point, but I'm
actually pointing out that those who insist that there's a correct and
incorrect way of doing things are perhaps actually the ones who're
being anally retentive. (That's meant in the nicest possible way!)
People are free to include this extra information as part of their (or
anyone elses) address without falling foul of any rule.

If anyone wishes to contend otherwise, I'd again kindly ask them to
please provide references or citations from Royal Mail that back up
that point of view. That'll be a struggle, because they don't exist!


Also, like it or not, lots of people in the fringes of London in some
areas - e.g. parts of the London Borough of Bromley are a good example
- would give their address as Kent, and would furthermore identify
with Kent (and also as soft of being part of Kent), at least in a
number of ways - whilst also quite possibly identifying with London as
well. Some on the edges would likely recoil as being labelled
Londoners.

As I said, like it or not. I'm sure you won't, but identity is a multi-
layered, amorphous thing, not something decreed by John Band.

To some extent... but location is clearly decreed by official
boundaries. People who live in Bromley can identify as Kentish and not
Londoners if they like - but their geographical location is London.

No - if you're subscribing to that argument, then you can say their
geographical location is "Greater London" by all means, but there's
nothing official that says they're in "London" full stop. Yes, they
might live in a "London Borough", but those are defined as being part
of "Greater London" as opposed to just London. All references to the
"Mayor of London" or "London Assembly" are either stylistic, or if
they are referred to as such in law (not sure if they are) then
they'll be prefixed by a mention in the Act's definitions section as
referring to "Greater London". AFAICS from the point of view of
statutory law there is no such place as "London" full stop.

I did once hear that Maggie Thatcher so detested the phrase "Greater
London" that she insisted that new laws referred to "London", but
they'd have to carry the explanation in the definitions as to what
this "London" was (which was "Greater London").

And you're more than welcome to argue that Downe is geographically
part of London if you wish! (I wouldn't argue to say it was part of
Kent, I would merely provide a bit more information as to its location
- 'fringes of London' or somesuch.)

My point is that there's no definitive geographic definition of
"London" as such.


Sewardstone, near Epping Forest, meanwhile is outside Greater London
but has a London postcode - E4.

It has a postcode that's primarily used within Greater London, yes.
I'm surprised by that actually - how did the PO's E district get so
far out...?

The E4 postcode is part of the London postal district. "Greater
London" has absolutely *no meaning* whatsoever in a postal address
sense - cast-iron fact.

As above, I didn't realise the entity 'London postal district' still
existed - I thought that N or E was a postal district, as is usually
the case for the initial letters of a postcode (e.g. GU or PO).
Nonetheless, it is clearly true that addresses within the LPD are
primarily within Greater London.

Undoubtedly.


The London fares (aka Travelcard) zones of course cover an area larger
than Greater London - and that's the case even if we're only talking
about the 'proper' zones 1-6.

'The TfL zonal area'. Yes, OK, I'll give you that one, ish.

AFAICS it's not officially called the "TfL zonal area" (not least
because logically that would include zones 7-9, which aren't
recognised by the TOCs as such as they're more of a unilateral
creation by TfL.) FWIW, the London Connections map refers to the
"London Fare Zones".

...in its NR variant, although not in its TfL variant...!
www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/lon_con.pdf

Yes... that refers to both "Travelcard zones" in the legend - which
states that stations beyond zone 9 are "Stations outside the zones",
and to the "TfL zonal area" in the the note about Watford Junction -
there's no suggestion on this map about zones 7-9 being in any way
different! Pity the poor passenger expecting these things to make
sense!

(For the record the note about Watford Jn reads as follows: "Watford
Junction is outside Transport for London zonal area. Special fares
apply.").


And I've just looked up the PDF of the now out-of-date National Fares
Manual 98, section A to be precise, which refers to the "London Fares
Zones area" on page A4 (PDF page 6) - it's still online he
http://www.atoc.org/retail/_download...8_Common_A.pdf

Obviously the 'proper' zones 1-6 firmly have their origins in the
boundaries of Greater London.

Yup, plus simplifications and subsidies from neighbouring counties
AIUI.

Essex County Council being the supposed source of subsidy that enables
Epping to be in zone 6. I must try and root out some official
documentation about this issue - I'd be interested to know they still
cough up for this.

What I've read beforehand is that neither Herfordshire CC nor any of
the Buckinghamshire local authorities (Bucks CC having been abolished
in favour of unitary authorities) subsidise the Met line service, but
I;ve no idea if that's true. Hertfordshire CC are of course an
integral part of the Croxley link proposal.


I think there's a number of other examples where an official or quasi-
official body of one sort or another defines London in different ways.

Examples (from the present day)?

Perhaps I've overstretched myself here... hmm! OK...

The Port of London Authority has, er, authority over the whole Port of
London, which consists of the tidal Thames from Teddington in the west
all the way out to the Thames estuary in the east - see:
http://www.pla.co.uk/display_fixedpa...d/178/site/pla

Yes, like it.

The London area of British Waterways stretches out to Bishop's
Stortford, Hertford and Slough.

Again, good.

I was going to say that there's plenty of references to a "London"
that isn't coterminous with Greater London in the broadcasting world -
however I've just checked the licenses for Carlton and LWT, the two
regional licensees for the Channel 3 service that cover London and
beyond, and there's no reference to "London" in the licenses apart
from where there's the list of transmitters. The BBC provide regional
television and radio services for a wide area that stretches beyond
Greater London that carry the name "BBC London", so one could argue
that's quasi-official. Of course broadcasting isn't really a very good
exemplar, as radio waves tend not to obey official boundaries!

Hehe. Is BBC TV 'BBC London'? I thought it was overall southeast, but
it's so long since I watched local BBC news I've no idea.

You watch even less television than I do then! BBC television used to
cover London as part of the South East region (perhaps officially
called "London & South East", I dunno), but in 2001 this was split -
London became a region in its own right, whilst the South East region
swallowed a transmitter from the South region and started a new
regional television news service that comes I think from Tunbridge
Wells.

There's more on wonkypedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_London
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_South_East


NATS has a "London Area Control" and "London Terminal Control", both
of which extend well beyond Greater London (OK, I'm stretching things
just a bit!). And then the government officially defines the "London
airports" as being Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted - only one of which
is inside Greater London (and until 1994, some of it wasn't in Greater
London) - though of course they're referring to airports that serve
London rather than airports that are within London.

The Church of England's Diocese of London only covers part of Greater
London (and includes at least one bit outside of Greater London,
Spelthorne), and doesn't stretch south of the river at all. Meanwhile
the Dioceses of Rochester, Southwark, Guildford, St Albans and
Chelmsford cover other areas in Greater London. Not official, you
might say? Well, the CoE has a number of unique responsibilities that
other churches don't have (AIUI basically the result of it being the
"established church")- e.g. marrying anyone at their parish church,
likewise providing funerals for those within the parish.

Interesting - I'm surprised it doesn't match up slightly better with
the county, I suppose that's the thing about Really Really Old
boundaries..

Aha, but what "county" are you referring to? Greater London, whilst
bearing many similarities to a metropolitan county, is emphatically
not one - it's a kind of special case, and as such always referred to
by name in statute law.

The old County of London is of course what we now refer to as "inner
London" (and LB Newham is notably not part of it, as it was
essentially formed of the county boroughs of East and West Ham). The
County of London lived on in some senses as a result of the ILEA, a
sort-of part of the GLC.


Erm... what else... I think the NHS used to define London in different
ways, but things have changed on that front (reflecting the general,
gradual move towards administering things in line with the Greater
London boundaries).

Of course sporting organisations define London in a great many
different ways - the very obvious example being cricket. One could I
suppose put forward an argument that some of these sporting bodies are
quasi-official, not least because the courts generally respect the
broad concept that they have authority over their respective sports.

Yes, it's a shame that cricket hasn't reorganised to match revised
county boundaries, if only for the reaction this would provoke among
Yorkshiremen g

That would have provoked the start of a second English Civil War!


Lastly, the really obvious point that I didn't make earlier is that
"London Underground" provides services to places outside of Greater
London (and it isn't underground in these places either!).

Good point. There aren't any underground bits of Underground outside
London, are there? Maybe some of LHR would have counted pre-1984...

Erm... well, I suppose the Central line goes underneath the M11!

(p.s. I think the realignment of boundaries around Heathrow happened
in 19*9*4.)