Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Why the Guardian is going down the pan!

for most purposes, 'inner london' is (with minor tinkering at the edges) the area of the 1889 london county council - the area north of the river is much smaller than south of the river, covering the current boroughs of (from the west) hammersmith + fulham, kensington + chelsea, westminster, camden, islington, hackney, tower hamlets.

before 1889, all of these except the 'square mile' city of london were in middlesex (south london was either surrey or kent.)

today's haringey borough was in middlesex until 1965, and places east of the river lea (canning town, stratford and so on) were in essex.

south of the river, the LCC area extended out to include current lambeth, southwark, lewisham and greenwich boroughs, so goes out to places like plumstead, abbey wood and crystal palace.

i'm sure it all made sense in 1889
The Office for National Statistics and Eurostat define Inner London differently. They include Haringey and Newham, but not Greenwich. So everyone's right, or wrong, depending on how you look at it.
 

I don't understand how anyone can write an article with this headline that doesn't once explicitly question the attitude and tactics of the Israeli soldiers - and crucially how this attitude contributes to the killing of Palestinian civilians. I understand that it is implied, but that is not enough. To frame this as an Israeli political issue rather than an example of base IDF brutality, and to fail to connect an incident like this with the civilian casualties says a lot about the editorial position of the paper.
 
Actually, I'd go further. Even the headline is obfuscatory and confusingly worded. It should simply state "IDF kills its own citizens", but it can't, because that would be making the situation too clear.
 
Case of formal definitions lagging the practical one tbh. It has vastly more in common with inner boroughs than outer ones.
 
Go argue with the Office for National Statistics. Preferably for the rest of your life
that's a really shit post, ignoring that there are or have been mayoral funds available to inner london boroughs outer london ones don't receive. The ons may lump haringey in with the likes of hackney but that doesn't butter any parsnips
 
Last edited:
According to the ONS, Greater London Urban Area includes St Albans.

Shrug Alan Partridge GIF - Shrug AlanPartridge Whatever - Discover ...
 
The ONS are just functionaries of neoliberalism - why should we accept their definitions? I don't want to rub it in but every sensible person knows that London's southern border is the north bank of the Thames. Yet they persist in defining Metropolitan Kent and Metropolitan Surrey as part of London. Ridiculous.
 
The ONS are just functionaries of neoliberalism - why should we accept their definitions? I don't want to rub it in but every sensible person knows that London's southern border is the north bank of the Thames. Yet they persist in defining Metropolitan Kent and Metropolitan Surrey as part of London. Ridiculous.
I thought that London was part of Greater Brighton.
 
The ONS are just functionaries of neoliberalism - why should we accept their definitions? I don't want to rub it in but every sensible person knows that London's southern border is the north bank of the Thames. Yet they persist in defining Metropolitan Kent and Metropolitan Surrey as part of London. Ridiculous.
Er...this may challenge your Nordcentric, metropolitan attitude?

 
Anyway, parts of our conurbation that are South of the Thames are actually far further North than many of those fancy-pants places that reckon they're in North London.

Everyone knows that Tripcock Ness in Woolwich is North of Docklands, Poplar, Limehouse, Shadwell, Trafalgar Square, Mayfair, Notting Hill, Shepherds Bush, Acton and Ealing.
 
Back
Top Bottom