In article
,
(Mizter T) wrote:

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

Not exactly. There are also EC, W and WC.

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).

ITYF that was also because the previous structure sucked NHS resources,
especially hospitals, into London and out of the surrounding areas.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Sun, 19 Jul 2009, wrote:

In article
,
(Mizter T) wrote:

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).

ITYF that was also because the previous structure sucked NHS resources,
especially hospitals, into London and out of the surrounding areas.

I have visions of nurses getting to work to find nothing left but the
foundations, with bandages and roof tiles scattered along a Londonward
path ...

tom

--
Next issue - Nigel and the slavegirls ... or, why capitalism can never
work!

In article . li,
(Tom Anderson) wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jul 2009, wrote:

In article
,
(Mizter T) wrote:

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).

ITYF that was also because the previous structure sucked NHS
resources, especially hospitals, into London and out of the
surrounding areas.

I have visions of nurses getting to work to find nothing left but
the foundations, with bandages and roof tiles scattered along a
Londonward path ...

London had an appalling GP service because everyone went to hospital for
matters that GPs deal with perfectly well elsewhere in the country. Areas
of London had hardly any GPs as a result. I don;t know if matters have
improved in the last 20 years.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Jul 19, 9:16*pm, wrote:
there is a London postal district. It
consists of all postcodes that begin NW, N, E, SE and SW.

Not exactly. There are also EC, W and WC.

....which reminds me: it's only since moving to an office in EC1 in
Islington that I realised there are EC postcodes that aren't in the
City. Are there any bits of the City that aren't in EC?

I know you can't expect the PO necessarily to keep up with boundaries
that were created years after its own creation, but bloody hell - were
they really too inept at the time of starting the London-post-district
system to try and stick vaguely to boundaries that had been defined
very clearly for over 500 years...?

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

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009, John B wrote:

On Jul 19, 9:16*pm, wrote:
there is a London postal district. It
consists of all postcodes that begin NW, N, E, SE and SW.

Not exactly. There are also EC, W and WC.

...which reminds me: it's only since moving to an office in EC1 in
Islington that I realised there are EC postcodes that aren't in the
City. Are there any bits of the City that aren't in EC?

I know you can't expect the PO necessarily to keep up with boundaries
that were created years after its own creation, but bloody hell - were
they really too inept at the time of starting the London-post-district
system to try and stick vaguely to boundaries that had been defined very
clearly for over 500 years...?

Why would they do that? Postcodes are about delivering letters, not
sticking to ancient boundaries.

tom

--
THE POWER OF MATHS COMPELS YOU, THE POWER OF MATHS COMPELS YOU! -- Jon

John B wrote on 21 July 2009 00:11:34 ...
On Jul 19, 9:16 pm, wrote:
there is a London postal district. It
consists of all postcodes that begin NW, N, E, SE and SW.
Not exactly. There are also EC, W and WC.

...which reminds me: it's only since moving to an office in EC1 in
Islington that I realised there are EC postcodes that aren't in the
City. Are there any bits of the City that aren't in EC?

Yes, a few. For example, the London Silver Vaults in Chancery Lane are
at WC2A 1QT but are in the City. The area between Houndsditch and
Middlesex Street, e.g. Petticoat Square, is in the City but has an E1
postcode.

I know you can't expect the PO necessarily to keep up with boundaries
that were created years after its own creation, but bloody hell - were
they really too inept at the time of starting the London-post-district
system to try and stick vaguely to boundaries that had been defined
very clearly for over 500 years...?

They were establishing a system to improve the efficiency of their
business. Why should they stick to 500-year-old boundaries which no
longer reflected the expanded metropolis? More modern features such as
railways are often more important in defining natural distribution areas
than ancient boundaries.

--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

On Jul 21, 12:28*am, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2009, John B wrote:
On Jul 19, 9:16*pm, wrote:
there is a London postal district. It
consists of all postcodes that begin NW, N, E, SE and SW.

Not exactly. There are also EC, W and WC.

...which reminds me: it's only since moving to an office in EC1 in
Islington that I realised there are EC postcodes that aren't in the
City. Are there any bits of the City that aren't in EC?

I know you can't expect the PO necessarily to keep up with boundaries
that were created years after its own creation, but bloody hell - were
they really too inept at the time of starting the London-post-district
system to try and stick vaguely to boundaries that had been defined very
clearly for over 500 years...?

Why would they do that? Postcodes are about delivering letters, not
sticking to ancient boundaries.

'vaguely' was the wrong word above: they did stick *vaguely* to said
boundaries, just not *actually*. Had they done one or the other,
it'd've been fine - but creating an area that's 95% contiguous with
another area is bizarre.

(also, much as it pains me to admit it, the Post Office's status -
especially back when the London districts were created - means that it
does bestow some kind of geographical status on addresses. Life would
be easier if London postcodes were aligned to boroughs...)

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

John B wrote:

I know you can't expect the PO necessarily to keep up with boundaries
that were created years after its own creation, but bloody hell - were
they really too inept at the time of starting the London-post-district
system to try and stick vaguely to boundaries that had been defined
very
clearly for over 500 years...?

Why would they do that? Postcodes are about delivering letters, not
sticking to ancient boundaries.

'vaguely' was the wrong word above: they did stick *vaguely* to said
boundaries, just not *actually*. Had they done one or the other,
it'd've been fine - but creating an area that's 95% contiguous with
another area is bizarre.

Yes but the City has expanded right up to the boundaries (which were
slightly modified in the 1990s) - it made sense to allocate the EC area in
terms of delivery, nothing more.

(also, much as it pains me to admit it, the Post Office's status -
especially back when the London districts were created - means that it
does bestow some kind of geographical status on addresses. Life would
be easier if London postcodes were aligned to boroughs...)

But in my experience it's only really in the London postal district where
this happens. Elsewhere you don't hear people using the post code as a short
hand for an area and they don't appear on street signs. I grew up in Epsom
and absolutely no-one there thinks of there being three distinct areas
called "KT17", "KT18" and "KT19" that divide up the town/borough/beyond.