HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

In message , at 00:24:16 on
Tue, 21 Jul 2009, Charles Ellson remarked:
(not sure if they take over if the bomb drops though).

Proximity might be a factor.

During the Cold War they'd have been one of the first into the bunker,
but now that most of the bunkers have closed, they won't have much
command and control capability even if they survive.
--
Roland Perry

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

In message , at 08:11:55 on Tue, 21
Jul 2009, Martin Edwards remarked:
Conversely, I frequently have to tell people in Birmingham, where I now
live, that Watford is not in London, though it is actually in
Hertfordshire and about thirty miles from the Square Mile. Many also
think it is the same place as Watford Gap, which is named after a
village of 400 people in Northants.

The gap's named after the village of Watford. It's a fascination place
with (in order of development) Watling St/A5, Grand Union Canal
(Leicester Section), WCML and M1 all within a quarter of a mile.
--
Roland Perry

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:17:04 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 20:13:24 on
Mon, 20 Jul 2009, Charles Ellson remarked:

There's an EU Directive that says all numbers must be portable.

I know, but the way OFCOM talks about them seems to suggest that they
use a different phrase for landlines.

Fixed line.

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/cond...iew/statement/

Ta.

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

James Farrar wrote:

Yes, they can be, but in the real UK the set of government boundaries is
not identical to the set of geographic boundaries.

Aren't all boundaries, natural or artificial, in a sense "geographic"?

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

In message , at 11:13:14 on Tue, 21
Jul 2009, Tim Roll-Pickering remarked:
Yes, they can be, but in the real UK the set of government boundaries is
not identical to the set of geographic boundaries.

Aren't all boundaries, natural or artificial, in a sense "geographic"?

Sometimes difficult to draw on a map. Is it possible for "within the
sound of Bow Bells"?
--
Roland Perry

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On 21 July, 11:13, "Tim Roll-Pickering" T.C.Roll-
wrote:
James Farrar wrote:
Yes, they can be, but in the real UK the set of government boundaries is
not identical to the set of geographic boundaries.

Aren't all boundaries, natural or artificial, in a sense "geographic"?

Sigh. For some reason, people think that previous government
boundaries are geographic, or somehow real, but current ones are not.

You get arguments like "Altrincham is administratively in Greater
Manchester, but it's geographically in Cheshire". Bizarre. What do
they think "Cheshire" is beyond an administrative or government
concept?

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:07:14 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be MIG
wrote this:-

You get arguments like "Altrincham is administratively in Greater
Manchester, but it's geographically in Cheshire". Bizarre. What do
they think "Cheshire" is beyond an administrative or government
concept?

I suspect it has something to do with the length of time the
administrative concept of counties has existed. Not only that, until
relatively recently the administrative concepts did not change
boundaries too often.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

MIG wrote:
On 21 July, 11:13, "Tim Roll-Pickering" T.C.Roll-
wrote:
James Farrar wrote:
Yes, they can be, but in the real UK the set of government
boundaries is not identical to the set of geographic boundaries.

Aren't all boundaries, natural or artificial, in a sense
"geographic"?

Sigh. For some reason, people think that previous government
boundaries are geographic, or somehow real, but current ones are not.

You get arguments like "Altrincham is administratively in Greater
Manchester, but it's geographically in Cheshire". Bizarre. What do
they think "Cheshire" is beyond an administrative or government
concept?

Cheshire is a group of people, many of whom were born as Cheshire and grew
up as Cheshire long before a particular group of Here Today, Gone Tomorrow
politicians told them that they no longer had the right to be Cheshire. Oh,
and it's a cheese.

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On 21 July, 17:29, "Basil Jet"
wrote:
MIG wrote:
On 21 July, 11:13, "Tim Roll-Pickering" T.C.Roll-
wrote:
James Farrar wrote:
Yes, they can be, but in the real UK the set of government
boundaries is not identical to the set of geographic boundaries.

Aren't all boundaries, natural or artificial, in a sense
"geographic"?

Sigh. *For some reason, people think that previous government
boundaries are geographic, or somehow real, but current ones are not.

You get arguments like "Altrincham is administratively in Greater
Manchester, but it's geographically in Cheshire". *Bizarre. *What do
they think "Cheshire" is beyond an administrative or government
concept?

Cheshire is a group of people, many of whom were born as Cheshire and grew
up as Cheshire long before a particular group of Here Today, Gone Tomorrow
politicians told them that they no longer had the right to be Cheshire. Oh,
and it's a cheese.

I haven't noticed people or cheeses changing name when they cross
administrative boundaries. I mean, that white crumbly stuff isn't
called Greater London Cheese in my local Tescos.

Members of a tribe called Cheshire can travel wherever they like.
What has it got to do with geographical boundaries?

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

MIG wrote:

On 21 July, 11:13, "Tim Roll-Pickering" T.C.Roll-
wrote:
James Farrar wrote:
Yes, they can be, but in the real UK the set of government boundaries is
not identical to the set of geographic boundaries.

Aren't all boundaries, natural or artificial, in a sense "geographic"?

Sigh. For some reason, people think that previous government
boundaries are geographic, or somehow real, but current ones are not.

You get arguments like "Altrincham is administratively in Greater
Manchester, but it's geographically in Cheshire". Bizarre. What do
they think "Cheshire" is beyond an administrative or government
concept?

Many counties were originally defined by reference to *topographical*
features, for example having rivers as boundaries. A statement on
whether something is geographical or not is probably a malapropism for
that. For example, the northern border of historical Cheshire is largely
defined by the River Mersey, whose name is derived from an OE word
meaning "border", signifying that it was formerly the border between
Mercia and Northumbria, before Cheshire was invented.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683819.html
(156 502 at Edinburgh Waverley, 4 Jun 1999)

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

In article ,
(David Hansen) wrote:

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:07:14 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be MIG
wrote this:-

You get arguments like "Altrincham is administratively in Greater
Manchester, but it's geographically in Cheshire". Bizarre. What do
they think "Cheshire" is beyond an administrative or government
concept?

I suspect it has something to do with the length of time the
administrative concept of counties has existed. Not only that, until
relatively recently the administrative concepts did not change
boundaries too often.

Counties had no clear boundaries in the modern sense before County
Councils were created in 1889.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

In message , at 14:05:21
on Tue, 21 Jul 2009, remarked:
Counties had no clear boundaries in the modern sense before County
Councils were created in 1889.

So what are all those maps I have framed on my wall? Similar to this one
from 1610:

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb..../genfiles/COU_
files/ENG/CAM/speed_camshire_1610.htm
--
Roland Perry

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message , at 14:05:21
on Tue, 21 Jul 2009, remarked:
Counties had no clear boundaries in the modern sense before County
Councils were created in 1889.

So what are all those maps I have framed on my wall? Similar to this one
from 1610:


http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb....nfiles/COU_fil
es/ENG/CAM/speed_camshire_1610.htm

Tell us which County Royston was in pre-1889 then.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

In message , at 14:36:29
on Tue, 21 Jul 2009, remarked:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~genmaps/genfiles/COU_files/ENG/CAM/speed_camshire_1610.htm

Tell us which County Royston was in pre-1889 then.

Most of the maps show it on the border, inconsistently one side or the
other. But whatever the answer is, the line between Cambridgshire and
Hertfordshire was in the same place (give or take a mile) all along.
--
Roland Perry

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message , at
14:36:29
on Tue, 21 Jul 2009, remarked:

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb....enfiles/COU_fi
les/ENG/CAM/speed_camshire_1610.htm

Tell us which County Royston was in pre-1889 then.

Most of the maps show it on the border, inconsistently one side or the
other. But whatever the answer is, the line between Cambridgshire and
Hertfordshire was in the same place (give or take a mile) all along.

You need to consider the significance of the line, though. Counties had
little administrative role before 1889.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009, MIG wrote:

On 21 July, 11:13, "Tim Roll-Pickering" T.C.Roll-
wrote:
James Farrar wrote:
Yes, they can be, but in the real UK the set of government boundaries is
not identical to the set of geographic boundaries.

Aren't all boundaries, natural or artificial, in a sense "geographic"?

Sigh. For some reason, people think that previous government boundaries
are geographic, or somehow real, but current ones are not.

You get arguments like "Altrincham is administratively in Greater
Manchester, but it's geographically in Cheshire". Bizarre. What do
they think "Cheshire" is beyond an administrative or government concept?

An ethnic group. Whether this belief is correct or not, i cannot say.

tom

--
If you had a chance to do any experiment you pleased, unconstrained by
any considerations of humanity or decency, what would you choose?

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On 21 July, 22:43, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2009, MIG wrote:
On 21 July, 11:13, "Tim Roll-Pickering" T.C.Roll-
wrote:
James Farrar wrote:
Yes, they can be, but in the real UK the set of government boundaries is
not identical to the set of geographic boundaries.

Aren't all boundaries, natural or artificial, in a sense "geographic"?

Sigh. *For some reason, people think that previous government boundaries
are geographic, or somehow real, but current ones are not.

You get arguments like "Altrincham is administratively in Greater
Manchester, but it's geographically in Cheshire". *Bizarre. *What do
they think "Cheshire" is beyond an administrative or government concept?

An ethnic group. Whether this belief is correct or not, i cannot say.

So nothing to do with geographical or administrative boundaries then.

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

The message . li
from Tom Anderson contains these words:

What do
they think "Cheshire" is beyond an administrative or government concept?

An ethnic group. Whether this belief is correct or not, i cannot say.

A very superior ethnic group!

--
Dave,
Frodsham
Cheshire

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

David Jackson wrote in
:

The message . li
from Tom Anderson contains these words:

What do
they think "Cheshire" is beyond an administrative or government
concept?

An ethnic group. Whether this belief is correct or not, i cannot say.

A very superior ethnic group!

Amen to that.

--
James
originally Stockport
Cheshire

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

In message , at 15:23:39
on Tue, 21 Jul 2009, remarked:
Tell us which County Royston was in pre-1889 then.

Most of the maps show it on the border, inconsistently one side or the
other. But whatever the answer is, the line between Cambridgshire and
Hertfordshire was in the same place (give or take a mile) all along.

You need to consider the significance of the line, though. Counties had
little administrative role before 1889.

What significance are you hinting at? Court catchment areas spring to
mind, as well as the "Shires" made up from a collection of Hundreds, and
controlled by the Reeve (later Sheriff from Shire-reeve).

Getting back to Royston, it's said that: "Royston is partly in the Odsey
Hundred of Hertfordshire, and partly in the Armingford Hundred of
Cambridgeshire."

Many of the maps I looked at yesterday appeared to have the border going
down the original line of the A505, which is as useful a geographic
boundary as any other (it's nowadays following the A505 *bypass*).

And *bingo* Wonkypedia says: "The Icknield Way used to form part of the
boundary between Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire, and at one time
Royston was cut in two by this boundary."
--
Roland Perry

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

In message , at 11:34:57 on Wed, 22 Jul
2009, Roland Perry remarked:
"The Icknield Way used to form part of the boundary between
Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire, and at one time Royston was cut in
two by this boundary."

And thinking of some more examples, the county boundary runs through the
centre of Chorleywood (Herts, and probably Bucks, from memory) and I've
been to one town in the USA where the state boundary (between Georgia
and Tennessee iirc) went through the middle (either along the fairly
small river it straddled, or possibly relocated a quarter of a mile
north on the Main Street). Now that's what I call a legislative
nightmare!
--
Roland Perry

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:34:57 on Wed, 22 Jul
2009, Roland Perry remarked:
"The Icknield Way used to form part of the boundary between
Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire, and at one time Royston was cut in
two by this boundary."

And thinking of some more examples, the county boundary runs through
the centre of Chorleywood (Herts, and probably Bucks, from memory)
and I've been to one town in the USA where the state boundary
(between Georgia and Tennessee iirc) went through the middle (either
along the fairly small river it straddled, or possibly relocated a
quarter of a mile north on the Main Street). Now that's what I call a
legislative nightmare!

It's a common enough situation - the boundary between Gary Indiana and
Chicago Illinois is another one.

I understand that Stringfellow's club in Westminster lost a lot of trade to
Spearmint Rhino's club over the border in Camden, where the rules on lady
display were a lot laxer.

Incidentally, Waggon Road turns into Wagon Road when it crosses from London
to Hertfordshire... Everytime I pass it, I imagine two pouting councillors
sitting in respective town halls with their arms folded, saying "Shan't!"

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

In message , Roland Perry
writes

I've been to one town in the USA where the state boundary (between
Georgia and Tennessee iirc) went through the middle (either along the
fairly small river it straddled, or possibly relocated a quarter of a
mile north on the Main Street). Now that's what I call a legislative
nightmare!

One of the classic American cases is Kansas City, one half of which is
in the state of Kansas and the other half in Missouri - but there they
have separate legislatures for the two parts.
--
Paul Terry

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

In message , at 14:36:53 on Wed, 22
Jul 2009, Basil Jet remarked:
I've been to one town in the USA where the state boundary
(between Georgia and Tennessee iirc) went through the middle (either
along the fairly small river it straddled, or possibly relocated a
quarter of a mile north on the Main Street). Now that's what I call a
legislative nightmare!

It's a common enough situation - the boundary between Gary Indiana and
Chicago Illinois is another one.

Although that doesn't actually split anything resembling a town. Gary,
IN is the closest, but all of it's actually east of the border.

The example I had in mind was more like (assuming Cambs didn't exist at
all) Cambridge being in Bedfordshire n/w of the river, and Suffolk s/e
of the river.

Of course, we have it a little like that in Nottingham with the
east-west Trent being the boundary (mostly, anyway) between the unitary
City and our equivalent of South Cambs inside Notts.
--
Roland Perry

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Wed, 22 Jul 2009, James Farrar wrote:

David Jackson wrote in
:

The message . li
from Tom Anderson contains these words:

What do
they think "Cheshire" is beyond an administrative or government
concept?

An ethnic group. Whether this belief is correct or not, i cannot say.

A very superior ethnic group!

Amen to that.

One so advanced they've lost the need to make decent cheese, apparently.

tom

--
Ideas are bulletproof. -- V

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009, MIG wrote:

On 21 July, 22:43, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2009, MIG wrote:
On 21 July, 11:13, "Tim Roll-Pickering" T.C.Roll-
wrote:
James Farrar wrote:
Yes, they can be, but in the real UK the set of government boundaries is
not identical to the set of geographic boundaries.

Aren't all boundaries, natural or artificial, in a sense "geographic"?

Sigh. *For some reason, people think that previous government boundaries
are geographic, or somehow real, but current ones are not.

You get arguments like "Altrincham is administratively in Greater
Manchester, but it's geographically in Cheshire". *Bizarre. *What do
they think "Cheshire" is beyond an administrative or government concept?

An ethnic group. Whether this belief is correct or not, i cannot say.

So nothing to do with geographical or administrative boundaries then.

In what way is the boundary of the territory inhabited by an ethnic group
not geographical?

tom

--
Ideas are bulletproof. -- V

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Wed, 22 Jul 2009, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 11:34:57 on Wed, 22 Jul 2009,
Roland Perry remarked:
"The Icknield Way used to form part of the boundary between Hertfordshire
and Cambridgeshire, and at one time Royston was cut in two by this
boundary."

And thinking of some more examples, the county boundary runs through the
centre of Chorleywood (Herts, and probably Bucks, from memory) and I've
been to one town in the USA where the state boundary (between Georgia
and Tennessee iirc) went through the middle (either along the fairly
small river it straddled, or possibly relocated a quarter of a mile
north on the Main Street). Now that's what I call a legislative
nightmare!

It is now inevitable that someone will mention Baarle-Hertog.

tom

--
Ideas are bulletproof. -- V

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Jul 22, 4:25*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:34:57 on Wed, 22 Jul 2009,
Roland Perry remarked:
"The Icknield Way used to form part of the boundary between Hertfordshire
and Cambridgeshire, and at one time Royston was cut in two by this
boundary."

And thinking of some more examples, the county boundary runs through the
centre of Chorleywood (Herts, and probably Bucks, from memory) and I've
been to one town in the USA where the state boundary (between Georgia
and Tennessee iirc) went through the middle (either along the fairly
small river it straddled, or possibly relocated a quarter of a mile
north on the Main Street). Now that's what I call a legislative
nightmare!

It is now inevitable that someone will mention Baarle-Hertog.

And you just did!

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On 23 July, 00:20, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2009, MIG wrote:
On 21 July, 22:43, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2009, MIG wrote:
On 21 July, 11:13, "Tim Roll-Pickering" T.C.Roll-
wrote:
James Farrar wrote:
Yes, they can be, but in the real UK the set of government boundaries is
not identical to the set of geographic boundaries.

Aren't all boundaries, natural or artificial, in a sense "geographic"?

Sigh. *For some reason, people think that previous government boundaries
are geographic, or somehow real, but current ones are not.

You get arguments like "Altrincham is administratively in Greater
Manchester, but it's geographically in Cheshire". *Bizarre. *What do
they think "Cheshire" is beyond an administrative or government concept?

An ethnic group. Whether this belief is correct or not, i cannot say.

So nothing to do with geographical or administrative boundaries then.

In what way is the boundary of the territory inhabited by an ethnic group
not geographical?

So Cheshire is now a territory? You just said it was an ethnic group.

If Cheshire ever was defined as the area occupied by an ethnic group,
its boundary is probably pretty much the whole world by now.

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Wed, 22 Jul 2009, 1506 wrote:

On Jul 22, 4:25*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:34:57 on Wed, 22 Jul 2009,
Roland Perry remarked:
"The Icknield Way used to form part of the boundary between Hertfordshire
and Cambridgeshire, and at one time Royston was cut in two by this
boundary."

And thinking of some more examples, the county boundary runs through the
centre of Chorleywood (Herts, and probably Bucks, from memory) and I've
been to one town in the USA where the state boundary (between Georgia
and Tennessee iirc) went through the middle (either along the fairly
small river it straddled, or possibly relocated a quarter of a mile
north on the Main Street). Now that's what I call a legislative
nightmare!

It is now inevitable that someone will mention Baarle-Hertog.

And you just did!

I KNEW IT!

tom

--
Technology is anything that wasn't around when you were born. -- Alan Kay

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Wed, 22 Jul 2009, MIG wrote:

On 23 July, 00:20, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2009, MIG wrote:
On 21 July, 22:43, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2009, MIG wrote:
On 21 July, 11:13, "Tim Roll-Pickering" T.C.Roll-
wrote:
James Farrar wrote:
Yes, they can be, but in the real UK the set of government boundaries is
not identical to the set of geographic boundaries.

Aren't all boundaries, natural or artificial, in a sense "geographic"?

Sigh. *For some reason, people think that previous government boundaries
are geographic, or somehow real, but current ones are not.

You get arguments like "Altrincham is administratively in Greater
Manchester, but it's geographically in Cheshire". *Bizarre. *What do
they think "Cheshire" is beyond an administrative or government concept?

An ethnic group. Whether this belief is correct or not, i cannot say.

So nothing to do with geographical or administrative boundaries then.

In what way is the boundary of the territory inhabited by an ethnic group
not geographical?

So Cheshire is now a territory? You just said it was an ethnic group.

I've changed my mind.

If Cheshire ever was defined as the area occupied by an ethnic group,
its boundary is probably pretty much the whole world by now.

Alright, Cheshire is the area inhabited predominantly by the Cheshese.

tom

--
Technology is anything that wasn't around when you were born. -- Alan Kay

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

The message . li
from Tom Anderson contains these words:

One so advanced they've lost the need to make decent cheese, apparently.

No, as it happens. You just need to buy the Real Thing(TM), not
something invented in ASDATescoburys. I have some rather tasty Cheshire
Blue on my plate right now...

--
Dave,
Frodsham
http://dave-jackson.fotopic.net

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 13:11:21 +0100, David Jackson
wrote:
The message . li
from Tom Anderson contains these words:

One so advanced they've lost the need to make decent cheese, apparently.

No, as it happens. You just need to buy the Real Thing(TM), not
something invented in ASDATescoburys. I have some rather tasty Cheshire
Blue on my plate right now...


Is Cheshire Blue really "the Real Thing™"?

Without any AOC regulations such as those that apply to. for example,
Champagne wines and Melton Mowbray pork pies, no Cheshire cheese can
be truly said to be "the Real Thing™". But surely blue was not one of
the traditional cheeses associated with the Cheshire "brand"?

Having been brought up in "Lancashire" I am more a fan of the mild
"Lancashire Creamy" and sharper "Lancashire Tasty" cheeses, as I have
always found Cheshire cheese far too bland - and not just the
supermarket variety. Hence the Cheshire Blue, I suppose - one way to
give a bland cheese some flavour is to turn it blue. White Stilton is
also too bland to be enjoyable.

As for Cheddar, any cheese that can be made in locations as far away
from Cheddar Gorge as Canada and Israel cannot expect to be taken
seriously. ;-)

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

The message
from Bruce contains these words:

Having been brought up in "Lancashire" I am more a fan of the mild
"Lancashire Creamy" and sharper "Lancashire Tasty" cheeses, as I have
always found Cheshire cheese far too bland - and not just the
supermarket variety. Hence the Cheshire Blue, I suppose - one way to
give a bland cheese some flavour is to turn it blue. White Stilton is
also too bland to be enjoyable.

My early experience of Lancashire cheese did nothing to convince me that
the stuff *wasn't* made in that big factory by WBQ. However my more
recent samplings of the farm-produced brands have made me change my
mind, and I rather like Garstang Blue, although it's a bit on the soft
side. Cotherstone (or is it Cotherston, I can never remember) made in
Durham, is an interesting cheese, although it's not always easy to get.

The "Famous Cheshire Cheese, mentioned in the Domesday Book" is too mild
and crumbly to be of interest here. BTW, we were talking about *cheese*
so why did you change the subject to "Cheddar"? (Isle of Mull Cheddar
isn't too bad!)

--
Dave,
Frodsham
http://dave-jackson.fotopic.net

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

Tom Anderson wrote:

On Wed, 22 Jul 2009, James Farrar wrote:

David Jackson wrote in
:

The message . li
from Tom Anderson contains these words:

What do
they think "Cheshire" is beyond an administrative or government
concept?

An ethnic group. Whether this belief is correct or not, i cannot say.

A very superior ethnic group!

Amen to that.

One so advanced they've lost the need to make decent cheese, apparently.

There are myths about Cheshire Cheese. One is that it is mentioned in
the Domesday book. It isn't. Butter, salt, beer, all those are mentioned
in connection with Cheshire, but not the cheese.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683683.html
(53099 (Class 116) at Birmingham New Street, Jun 1985)

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

David Jackson wrote:

The "Famous Cheshire Cheese, mentioned in the Domesday Book" is too mild
and crumbly to be of interest here

It isn't mentioned in the Domesday Book. I've looked. See my other
posting.
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683741.html
(142 040 at Shaw and Crompton, 26 Feb 2001)

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 18:09:54 +0100, David Jackson
wrote:
The message
from Bruce contains these words:

Having been brought up in "Lancashire" I am more a fan of the mild
"Lancashire Creamy" and sharper "Lancashire Tasty" cheeses, as I have
always found Cheshire cheese far too bland - and not just the
supermarket variety. Hence the Cheshire Blue, I suppose - one way to
give a bland cheese some flavour is to turn it blue. White Stilton is
also too bland to be enjoyable.

My early experience of Lancashire cheese did nothing to convince me that
the stuff *wasn't* made in that big factory by WBQ. However my more
recent samplings of the farm-produced brands have made me change my
mind, and I rather like Garstang Blue, although it's a bit on the soft
side.


You like your blue cheese, obviously! I'm a fan of Rocquefort and
always have some at home. I've never tried Garstang Blue, but I will
try and get some next time I'm in Lancs - very soon. I always take a
12V coolbox in the car and stock up on Morecambe Bay potted shrimps,
Lancashire cheese and sticky toffee puddings - the latter for friends.

Cotherstone (or is it Cotherston, I can never remember) made in
Durham, is an interesting cheese, although it's not always easy to get.


Is that another blue? Can't say I have ever come across it.


The "Famous Cheshire Cheese, mentioned in the Domesday Book" is too mild
and crumbly to be of interest here.


My point exactly. ;-)


BTW, we were talking about *cheese*
so why did you change the subject to "Cheddar"?


Perhaps we should call it a "milk based savoury snack food".


(Isle of Mull Cheddar isn't too bad!)


I'll take your word for it. In the meantime, I wouldn't be surprised
to find Ukrainian and Chilean Cheddars in the shops. :-(

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

Bruce wrote:

As for Cheddar, any cheese that can be made in locations as far away
from Cheddar Gorge as Canada and Israel cannot expect to be taken
seriously. ;-)

Legally, Stilton *can't* be made in Stilton.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

The message
from Chris Tolley (ukonline really) contains
these words:

David Jackson wrote:

The "Famous Cheshire Cheese, mentioned in the Domesday Book" is too mild
and crumbly to be of interest here

It isn't mentioned in the Domesday Book. I've looked. See my other
posting.

Hence the quotation marks.

--
Dave,
Frodsham
http://dave-jackson.fotopic.net