I've never said this before, but the past few days have probably been the low point on here. Self obsessed Mockneys, competing to see just how many jellied eels they can eat won't encourage many new posters to Britain's Most Read Political Blog. It is genuinely embarrassing.
Anyway, a true Londoner can be easily detected, they expect their pies to be served upside down in the the liquor and consume them with lots of vinegar (stewed eels with your pie are optional).
Fascinating as I have found this somewhat rather bizarre running dispute on what makes a Londoner a Londoner - on this matter Sir, I beg to differ.
Why don't we all just agree Yorkshire is the best place in the country.
I mean, the Garden of Eden was located in North Yorkshire.
I have lived in both London and Yorkshire TSE, and I'm afraid as long as Barnsley resides there, Yorkshire will never raise the trophy of 'best place in the country' above it's head - sad but true..!
Mr. T, archaeologists and historians often disagree. If you're referring to a specific pinpoint within London, then it's possible you're correct, but also that I'm right that a settlement pre-dated the Roman establishment but was not on precisely the same patch of ground.
As an aside, it's telling just how long a shadow Rome casts, even now. The Capitol building in America, for example, was made after the Empire fell but has many elements of Greco-Roman architecture.
Francis Elliott - The Times (Lefty rag etc etc) "Number 10 shifts position on reform to MPs self-regulation. Y'day he "stands by current system" today "very open" to ideas to improve."
Francis Elliott - The Times (Lefty rag etc etc) "Number 10 shifts position on reform to MPs self-regulation. Y'day he "stands by current system" today "very open" to ideas to improve."
Thank goodness we have a PM who is open to ideas to ideas improve (anything).
The alternative is a dire concept. Are the two positions you quote incompatible?
@isam Cashed it, calculated that essentially they were offering me their own price (25-1) to lay at... and the market is all wanting to lay Swansea for relegation on Betfair (So not reddable there). So it was actually a fair offer.
Sunderland will probably beat the spuds now I've done that !
Mr. T, archaeologists and historians often disagree. If you're referring to a specific pinpoint within London, then it's possible you're correct, but also that I'm right that a settlement pre-dated the Roman establishment but was not on precisely the same patch of ground.
As an aside, it's telling just how long a shadow Rome casts, even now. The Capitol building in America, for example, was made after the Empire fell but has many elements of Greco-Roman architecture.
It's not "possible I am correct", I AM correct. The consensus amongst historians AND archaeologists is that there was no recognisable pre-existent settlement on the site where the Romans founded London.
"Most Roman towns were sited either over previous towns, or over Roman forts. London was unusual in that it appears to have been founded from scratch. And it wasn’t a quick foundation. The Roman invasion was in AD 43, but it was not until around AD 50 that the first coins indicate the foundation of the town of London."
If your point is to say, Wait there must have been a campfire built by the Beaker people somewhere inside the M25 between the ice age and the Roman arrival in AD 43 you are right, but your point is utterly irrelevant.
Ironically - as a sometime writer of archaeological mystery thrillers - I would love it, in the Kevin Keegan sense, if London did have pre-Roman antecedents. Imagine, a strange Celtic city founded in Aldwych in 2500 BC, a complex of Neolithic temples and cemeteries right under the Gherkin, which even today affect the officer workers!
Timbers 30cm in diameter forced into the river/marshbed doesn't seem temporary, and they were 6,000 years old. Bronze age finds were also found in the area.
I think you're right in that the Romans formed the first significant settlement, but given London's location, it would make sense for there to have been a river crossing in the area, even if that was just a ferry for times when the river was unfordable.
"Anfield is packed with Scousers. As anybody who has ever been would attest to."
To be fair to them, that's right. He may be getting confused with Old Trafford.
Packed....really. Latest survey on season ticket holders is as far as I can see the 2004/5 Premier League Fans survey.The question of where season ticket holders live seems to have been ommitted from the more recent ones. Liverpool had 30% of season ticket holders living within 10 miles of the ground (sixth lowest) 62% living within 49 miles of the ground(lowest in the league) and 38% of season ticket holders living 50 miles or more from the ground which was the highest in the league, 1% more than Man United.
Just seen Jack's ARSE - looks OK to me, can we cancel the election and take Jack's predictions as fact - would save a small fortune and give us Liberal Democrats some seats!
Why oh Why every time that I clear cookies does Vanilla not recognise my password - I have to ask for an email to reset it - I always use the same password - very annoying.
Cameron would get the blame for losing the union and not offering Devomax, etc. The question is whether he would resign or limp on to 2015.
I reckon he's the sort of upright chap (or perceives himself thus) who would resign.
With Clegg going too following the Euro's, 2015 could yet see Labour limping along with the anchor that is Ed Miliband, whilst the Tories and LibDems get the chance to refresh their offering to the voters.
Trouble is, no-one in the Tory camp is pointing to the Better Together campaign and saying they must do much better in holding the union together. There's no-one in September going to be saying "I TOLD you this was going to happen..." If the Scots vote with glee to condemn England to continuous Tory rule, how is Cameron supposed to stop that from London? The Tories have already pulled all but one lone MP down below Hadrian's Wall in preparation for Scotland going solo. If Better Together is a failure, it is largely a failure of Labour - under Darling - to stop its vote from defecting to Yes. How is Cameron responsible for that?
Ironically, the Miller affair suggests that Cameron is prepared to "do the decent thing", even when it is not in his best political interests. So maybe he will pick up the pearl-handled revolver and a 20 year-old malt and slope off to the library....
So why doesn't Cameron get rid of Miller? Surely he could replace her with another woman if he's so concerned about that kind of thing. I suspect he's loathe to get rid of a colleague who let's him know how wonderful he is.
Can't we all agree that London is fantastic, and its entire population is among the most beautiful, dynamic, sexy, perfect witty, intelligent and stylish in the World? Wouldn't that be easier?
Sing along with the common people, Sing along and it might just get you through. Laugh along with the common people, Laugh along even though they're laughing at you, And the stupid things that you do. Because you think that poor is cool.
Like a dog lying in a corner, They will bite you and never warn you, Look out,they'll tear your insides out. 'Cause everybody hates a tourist, Especially one who thinks it's all such a laugh, Yeah and the chip stain's grease, Will come out in the bath.
You will never understand How it feels to live your life With no meaning or control And with nowhere left to go. You are amazed that they exist And they burn so bright, Whilst you can only wonder why. Rent a flat above a shop Cut your hair and get a job Smoke some fags and play some pool Pretend you never went to school, But still you'll never get it right 'Cause when you're laid in bed at night And watching roaches climb the wall, If you called your dad he could stop it all Yeah
You'll never live like common people You'll never do what common people do You'll never fail like common people You'll never watch your life slide out of view And then dance and drink and screw Because there's nothing else to do
I am assuming all this London stuff is a clever code about some cool outfit (no doubt with its own website) that can only be talked about by allusion. Otherwise it is really delusional.
Can't we all agree that London is fantastic, and its entire population is among the most beautiful, dynamic, sexy, perfect witty, intelligent and stylish in the World? Wouldn't that be easier?
At least it gives them a squirrel conversation for tonight after the Yougov comes out.
So why doesn't Cameron get rid of Miller? Surely he could replace her with another woman if he's so concerned about that kind of thing. I suspect he's loathe to get rid of a colleague who let's him know how wonderful he is.
1) General personal loyalty, which seems to be a Cameron feature. 2) Let the press push him around over this one and they'll be back for more. 3) Thanks to the leadership challenge rules, he needs to keep the proportion of his party who harbour grudges against him below 15%. Once you count the people who oppose him for ideological reasons this doesn't give him a lot of leeway to create a bunch of narked-off ex-ministers.
"After all, Constantine the Great was a Yorkshireman."
I don't think so. His mum was a Yorkshire lass (Helena discoverer of the true cross) and his dad died in York, but I think the man himself was born in what is now Serbia.
If that's a reference to Rome I think you're wrong. Can't recall the chap, perhaps it was Tacitus, or referred to in Philip Matyszak's Gladiator Unofficial Manual, but I do remember reading it was there (Llyn Din, or similar) when the Romans arrived.
Mr. Llama, I quite agree.
In related news, it was interesting that Williams and Ferrari seemed to suffer more tyre wear and had to do 3 stops rather than 2.
No. Wrong. London was founded by Italians - Romans. Prior to that there were a few scattered Celtic farmsteads (yes, the Celts, horrible immigrants from Iron Age Europe) - but nothing remotely comparable with a village or town, let alone a city.
"However, despite intensive excavations, archaeologists have found no evidence of a prehistoric major settlement in the area. There have been scattered prehistoric finds, evidence of farming, burial and traces of habitation, but nothing more substantial. It is now considered unlikely that a pre-Roman city existed, but as some of the Roman city remains unexcavated, it is still just possible that some settlement may yet be discovered."
I'm looking for someone to fund the restoration of the statues of King Lud and his sons if you are feeling flush and want to demonstrate your Londonessness beyond all doubt ;-)
Wasn't Londinium built where it was as the lowest bridging point on the Thames? If so it's unlikely pre-Roman technology could have bridged it there. As I understand it the Thames was wider than currently and slow moving, and the whole area a bit marshy, so not terribly desirable.
Mr. T, archaeologists and historians often disagree. If you're referring to a specific pinpoint within London, then it's possible you're correct, but also that I'm right that a settlement pre-dated the Roman establishment but was not on precisely the same patch of ground.
As an aside, it's telling just how long a shadow Rome casts, even now. The Capitol building in America, for example, was made after the Empire fell but has many elements of Greco-Roman architecture.
If your point is to say, Wait there must have been a campfire built by the Beaker people somewhere inside the M25 between the ice age and the Roman arrival in AD 43 you are right, but your point is utterly irrelevant.
Ironically - as a sometime writer of archaeological mystery thrillers - I would love it, in the Kevin Keegan sense, if London did have pre-Roman antecedents. Imagine, a strange Celtic city founded in Aldwych in 2500 BC, a complex of Neolithic temples and cemeteries right under the Gherkin, which even today affect the officer workers!
Timbers 30cm in diameter forced into the river/marshbed doesn't seem temporary, and they were 6,000 years old. Bronze age finds were also found in the area.
I think you're right in that the Romans formed the first significant settlement, but given London's location, it would make sense for there to have been a river crossing in the area, even if that was just a ferry for times when the river was unfordable.
I can't remember where I read it now (possibly Ackroyd) but there is evidence that roughly where the Bank of England is now, there was a ghastly Celtic shrine BEFORE the Romans arrived.
As it was a Celtic shrine, it was decorated with severed human hands. And maybe severed human heads. Tom Knox could indeed make something of that, given all those thieving bankers were caught red handed, and deserve decapitation, &c &c.
However, in terms of a pre-London London, it is actually counter-indicative: as the Celts generally chose remote spooky locations for their shrines, away from settlement - further implying that the area where the Romans founded the City was empty.
Thanks, I didn't know about the Celtic shrine - do you know if it was near the later Roman Mithraeum?
But we're perhaps getting into nomenclature: if you're talking about the location of the Roman city, you might well be right: further away, but still inside modern London, you might be wrong. There must have been a pre-Roman crossing of the Thames in that area, and where you get crossings, you get settlements, however small.
Can't we all agree that London is fantastic, and its entire population is among the most beautiful, dynamic, sexy, perfect witty, intelligent and stylish in the World? Wouldn't that be easier?
At least it gives them a squirrel conversation for tonight after the Yougov comes out.
Oh dear - like the way you've ignored today's Populus?
Mr. T, must say I think you're twice wrong. The absence of a major settlement does not mean the absence of a settlement.
As for Romans being Italians: that's a shade anachronistic. Italia was not the identity of Romans, they were defined by the city.
Mr. Eagles, quite so. After all, Constantine the Great was a Yorkshireman.
Er, OK. I suggest you speak to an archaeologist. The consensus is that there was no recognisable settlement of the Thameside now known as the City of London before the Romans came.
"The beginnings of London can be dated with some exactitude to the invasion of the Romans in 43AD. Prior to the Roman invasion there was no permanent settlement of significance on the site of London. Instead, the Thames River flowed through marshy ground sprinkled with small islands of gravel and sand. There were probably more mosquitoes than people inhabiting the area."
The Romans settled where they did as it was the easiest place to build a militarily vital bridge across the Thames (plus there was game, wood, fresh water, no hostile locals, etc). So they founded the City.
There was no settlement at the City of London. There were settlements at Westminster and Fleetside (and, I think, Tyburn). Now iSam might dispute they were part of 'true London' but I think most people would accept them as relevant to the question at hand
Can't we all agree that London is fantastic, and its entire population is among the most beautiful, dynamic, sexy, perfect witty, intelligent and stylish in the World? Wouldn't that be easier?
At least it gives them a squirrel conversation for tonight after the Yougov comes out.
Much more interested in ICM (ye olde golde standarde) and this month's is surely due soon, perhaps tomorrow? TSE? Mike?
Cameron would get the blame for losing the union and not offering Devomax, etc. The question is whether he would resign or limp on to 2015.
I reckon he's the sort of upright chap (or perceives himself thus) who would resign.
With Clegg going too following the Euro's, 2015 could yet see Labour limping along with the anchor that is Ed Miliband, whilst the Tories and LibDems get the chance to refresh their offering to the voters.
Trouble is, no-one in the Tory camp is pointing to the Better Together campaign and saying they must do much better in holding the union together. There's no-one in September going to be saying "I TOLD you this was going to happen..." If the Scots vote with glee to condemn England to continuous Tory rule, how is Cameron supposed to stop that from London? The Tories have already pulled all but one lone MP down below Hadrian's Wall in preparation for Scotland going solo. If Better Together is a failure, it is largely a failure of Labour - under Darling - to stop its vote from defecting to Yes. How is Cameron responsible for that?
Ironically, the Miller affair suggests that Cameron is prepared to "do the decent thing", even when it is not in his best political interests. So maybe he will pick up the pearl-handled revolver and a 20 year-old malt and slope off to the library....
Hmm, be fair to Mr Cameron. The very divergence, with Scotland left to the un-Torified hordes, was a fundamental Tory failure. And Mr Cameron cannot be blamed for that, even if he is no new Septimus Severus. (And don't forget the Scots Tories do quite well as a minority interest when the yoke of FPTP is lifted, as in the Scottish Parliament.)
Your mention of the Wall (which BTW is all in England, pace Mr Rory Stewart MP, who shows a much inferior understanding of Roman archaeology than some on this site) prompts a quote from Kipling -
Legate, I had the news last night – my cohort ordered home By ships to Portus Itius and thence by road to Rome. I’ve marched the companies aboard, the arms are stowed below: Now let another take my sword. Command me not to go!
.... Legate, I come to you in tears – My cohort ordered home! I’ve served in Britain forty years. What should I do in Rome? Here is my heart, my soul, my mind – the only life I know. I cannot leave it all behind. Command me not to go!
- and from anther poem -
Rome never looks where she treads. Always her heavy hooves fall On our stomachs, our hearts or our heads; And Rome never heeds when we bawl. Her sentries pass on -- that is all, And we gather behind them in hordes, And plot to reconquer the Wall, With only our tongues for our swords ...
Sing along with the common people, Sing along and it might just get you through. Laugh along with the common people, Laugh along even though they're laughing at you, And the stupid things that you do. Because you think that poor is cool.
Like a dog lying in a corner, They will bite you and never warn you, Look out,they'll tear your insides out. 'Cause everybody hates a tourist, Especially one who thinks it's all such a laugh, Yeah and the chip stain's grease, Will come out in the bath.
You will never understand How it feels to live your life With no meaning or control And with nowhere left to go. You are amazed that they exist And they burn so bright, Whilst you can only wonder why. Rent a flat above a shop Cut your hair and get a job Smoke some fags and play some pool Pretend you never went to school, But still you'll never get it right 'Cause when you're laid in bed at night And watching roaches climb the wall, If you called your dad he could stop it all Yeah
You'll never live like common people You'll never do what common people do You'll never fail like common people You'll never watch your life slide out of view And then dance and drink and screw Because there's nothing else to do
I am assuming all this London stuff is a clever code about some cool outfit (no doubt with its own website) that can only be talked about by allusion. Otherwise it is really delusional.
I like that song... the lyrics seem to ring very true.
Mr. T, archaeologists and historians often disagree. If you're referring to a specific pinpoint within London, then it's possible you're correct, but also that I'm right that a settlement pre-dated the Roman establishment but was not on precisely the same patch of ground.
As an aside, it's telling just how long a shadow Rome casts, even now. The Capitol building in America, for example, was made after the Empire fell but has many elements of Greco-Roman architecture.
But sadly that's not the case.
Not unfordable.
I can't remember where I read it now (possibly Ackroyd) but there is evidence that roughly where the Bank of England is now, there was a ghastly Celtic shrine BEFORE the Romans arrived.
As it was a Celtic shrine, it was decorated with severed human hands. And maybe severed human heads. Tom Knox could indeed make something of that, given all those thieving bankers were caught red handed, and deserve decapitation, &c &c.
However, in terms of a pre-London London, it is actually counter-indicative: as the Celts generally chose remote spooky locations for their shrines, away from settlement - further implying that the area where the Romans founded the City was empty.
Thanks, I didn't know about the Celtic shrine - do you know if it was near the later Roman Mithraeum?
But we're perhaps getting into nomenclature: if you're talking about the location of the Roman city, you might well be right: further away, but still inside modern London, you might be wrong. There must have been a pre-Roman crossing of the Thames in that area, and where you get crossings, you get settlements, however small.
See my edit, it was along the Walbrook valley: so, yes, near the Mithraeum, and Wren's famous church, and the Bank of England.
Otherwise we are indeed splitting hairs. At some point a city is founded - it begins. This is usually taken to mean: when the first streets are laid, the first group of significant buildings put up, the first market or bridge is built. It doesn't matter if there were scattered settlements of farmers or traders within 2, 5, or 20 miles; and if you DO take those as evidence of pre-existence then almost every major European city probably dates back to the Iron Age, or even the Ice Age, and the argument is rendered valueless.
London, as we know it, began around AD 43, with the Romans.
OK, now for some work.
Fairy nuff. And BTW, thanks for helping me learn something this morning - I had no idea about the Celtic skulls.
Carnyx, when I was at uni at Durham I walked sections of the wall, so I know where it is - and that it will be safely preserved for posterity in England.
I also saw on the TV series where Rory Stewart raced over open ground and over the wall, so I assume he is now safely on the right side. But we might have to get word to John Stevenson, MP for Carlisle....
Can't we all agree that London is fantastic, and its entire population is among the most beautiful, dynamic, sexy, perfect witty, intelligent and stylish in the World? Wouldn't that be easier?
At least it gives them a squirrel conversation for tonight after the Yougov comes out.
Oh dear - like the way you've ignored today's Populus?
Not seen it, though seeing as there is hardly any mention of it, I assume the Holy Crossover didn't occur.
UKIP candidate for Thurrock Tim Aker very impressive on Daily Politics today... snap up the double figure prices on him taking that seat off the Cons next year
Mr. T, archaeologists and historians often disagree. If you're referring to a specific pinpoint within London, then it's possible you're correct, but also that I'm right that a settlement pre-dated the Roman establishment but was not on precisely the same patch of ground.
As an aside, it's telling just how long a shadow Rome casts, even now. The Capitol building in America, for example, was made after the Empire fell but has many elements of Greco-Roman architecture.
If your point is to say, Wait there must have been a campfire built by the Beaker people somewhere inside the M25 between the ice age and the Roman arrival in AD 43 you are right, but your point is utterly irrelevant.
Ironically - as a sometime writer of archaeological mystery thrillers - I would love it, in the Kevin Keegan sense, if London did have pre-Roman antecedents. Imagine, a strange Celtic city founded in Aldwych in 2500 BC, a complex of Neolithic temples and cemeteries right under the Gherkin, which even today affect the officer workers!
Timbers 30cm in diameter forced into the river/marshbed doesn't seem temporary, and they were 6,000 years old. Bronze age finds were also found in the area.
I think you're right in that the Romans formed the first significant settlement, but given London's location, it would make sense for there to have been a river crossing in the area, even if that was just a ferry for times when the river was unfordable.
I can't remember where I read it now (possibly Ackroyd) but there is evidence that roughly where the Bank of England is now, there was a ghastly Celtic shrine BEFORE the Romans arrived.
As it was a Celtic shrine, it was decorated with severed human hands. And maybe severed human heads. Tom Knox could indeed make something of that, given all those thieving bankers were caught red handed, and deserve decapitation, &c &c.
However, in terms of a pre-London London, it is actually counter-indicative: as the Celts generally chose remote spooky locations for their shrines, away from settlement - further implying that the area where the Romans founded the City was empty.
EDIT: found a reference (though it doesn't mention the hands). The shrine was in Walbrook:
Mr. T., Acroyd in his biography of London is quite insistent, and persuasive, on the existence of settlements in what we now know as London before the Romans came.
I think what isam is struggling to say is that a small percentage of poor white British people rooted in the shabbier parts of London - essentially the cockneys, the indigenous WWC Londoners - are unhappy about foreigners moving in to THEIR particular bits of London, and acting like they own the place.
And I empathise with that. Most settled communities would feel the same.
But given that these Londoners live in a city founded by Italians, rebuilt by Germans, affirmed by Danes, ennobled by Normans, a city which has always depended on a constant turnover of incomers and outgoers, a city which recently became the first conurbation in the world where 300 languages are spoken, the opinions of a small minority, however poignant and understandable, are irrelevant to the wider debate.
Moroever, by the definition of isam et al, Dick Whittington, the most famous Londoner in history, is not a Londoner. Yet of course he is the QUINTESSENTIAL Londoner, the most iconic Londoner in history, as he tells the quintessential London story - poor boy moves to big city, makes good.
NOW can we move on?
What, because you've had the last word?
I never meant to insult you by saying you weren't a Londoner, that you took it as an insult and had to started throwing "chav" etc around and boasting of how rich you are etc is proof you aren't a Londoner. If you were you'd have just said "I was born and bred here" and that would have been the end of it.
But good to see that you think the fact that less than half of Londoners are white British, that 22% don't speak English as a first language are good things.. makes my point for me.
Dick Whittington the most famous Londoner in History? Says who? And by my definition he could be a Londoner having come there as a boy
Can't we all agree that London is fantastic, and its entire population is among the most beautiful, dynamic, sexy, perfect witty, intelligent and stylish in the World? Wouldn't that be easier?
I think what isam is struggling to say is that a small percentage of poor white British people rooted in the shabbier parts of London - essentially the cockneys, the indigenous WWC Londoners - are unhappy about foreigners moving in to THEIR particular bits of London, and acting like they own the place.
And I empathise with that. Most settled communities would feel the same.
But given that these Londoners live in a city founded by Italians, rebuilt by Germans, affirmed by Danes, ennobled by Normans, a city which has always depended on a constant turnover of incomers and outgoers, a city which recently became the first conurbation in the world where 300 languages are spoken, the opinions of a small minority, however poignant and understandable, are irrelevant to the wider debate.
Moroever, by the definition of isam et al, Dick Whittington, the most famous Londoner in history, is not a Londoner. Yet of course he is the QUINTESSENTIAL Londoner, the most iconic Londoner in history, as he tells the quintessential London story - poor boy moves to big city, makes good.
NOW can we move on?
What, because you've had the last word?
I never meant to insult you by saying you weren't a Londoner, that you took it as an insult and had to started throwing "chav" etc around and boasting of how rich you are etc is proof you aren't a Londoner. If you were you'd have just said "I was born and bred here" and that would have been the end of it.
But good to see that you think the fact that less than half of Londoners are white British, that 22% don't speak English as a first language are good things.. makes my point for me.
Dick Whittington the most famous Londoner in History? Says who? And by my definition he could be a Londoner having come there as a boy
Thread idea for TSE: Would an independent immigrant-built London elected by AV be an automatic member of the EU due to its being the capital of the world?
Can't we all agree that London is fantastic, and its entire population is among the most beautiful, dynamic, sexy, perfect witty, intelligent and stylish in the World? Wouldn't that be easier?
Yes.
I have a love-hate relationship with the capital. I lived there for nearly five years up to '94, and had a shit-but-shining time there. When I go back, I love the place *until* I have to travel in rush hour. Then I hate it.
The other week I went to the exhibition at Charles's gaff, and because my meeting was mercifully short, walked instead of getting the tube. It made me fall in love with London all over again.
Apart from the fact that the second letter is an even more bonkers idea than the first letter, the timing is striking. To write such a letter before the EU elections (making it very difficult for a third letter to be written reinstating his no confidence, even if the results are rubbish) seems particularly odd.
Can't we all agree that London is fantastic, and its entire population is among the most beautiful, dynamic, sexy, perfect witty, intelligent and stylish in the World? Wouldn't that be easier?
Yes.
I have a love-hate relationship with the capital. I lived there for nearly five years up to '94, and had a shit-but-shining time there. When I go back, I love the place *until* I have to travel in rush hour. Then I hate it.
The other week I went to the exhibition at Charles's gaff, and because my meeting was mercifully short, walked instead of getting the tube. It made me fall in love with London all over again.
But would I live there? I'm not so sure.
It's not for everyone. But I love it. Most people who claim to hate it are tourists who have seen around 1% of it.
Mr. T, archaeologists and historians often disagree. If you're referring to a specific pinpoint within London, then it's possible you're correct, but also that I'm right that a settlement pre-dated the Roman establishment but was not on precisely the same patch of ground.
As an aside, it's telling just how long a shadow Rome casts, even now. The Capitol building in America, for example, was made after the Empire fell but has many elements of Greco-Roman architecture.
If your point is to say, Wait there must have been a campfire built by the Beaker people somewhere inside the M25 between the ice age and the Roman arrival in AD 43 you are right, but your point is utterly irrelevant.
Ironically - as a sometime writer of archaeological mystery thrillers - I would love it, in the Kevin Keegan sense, if London did have pre-Roman antecedents. Imagine, a strange Celtic city founded in Aldwych in 2500 BC, a complex of Neolithic temples and cemeteries right under the Gherkin, which even today affect the officer workers!
Timbers 30cm in diameter forced into the river/marshbed doesn't seem temporary, and they were 6,000 years old. Bronze age finds were also found in the area.
I think you're right in that the Romans formed the first significant settlement, but given London's location, it would make sense for there to have been a river crossing in the area, even if that was just a ferry for times when the river was unfordable.
Mr. T., Acroyd in his biography of London is quite insistent, and persuasive, on the existence of settlements in what we now know as London before the Romans came.
Peter Ackroyd once tried to seduce me in the Quality Chop House, Farringdon. It was, ahem, quite a while ago. But a very London moment.
Was it more uncomfortable to fend him off (if you did) or to sit on those stupid benches there?
As I recall, Tim Aker was quite a vocal Conservative until he "saw the light" or "surrendered to the dark side" (delete as appropriate).
On-topic, the "nightmare scenario" of the Conservatives narrowly winning the popular vote but Labour winning most seats should be concentrating minds across the political spectrum.
We come back as always to the arithmetic - could a Coalition 2 work in the HoC with a majority of say 10-20 seats ? Would the two parties want it to ?
My long-held view is the LDs will go into Opposition after 2015 irrespective of the result. I just don't see the appetite for another five years of this and I suspect the same may be true in many parts of the Conservative party.
As for Labour, if they are within touching distance (fewer than 10) of a majority, I suspect they'll form a minority administration safe in the knowledge no one will want an immediate second election.
The Conservatives in 1951 formed a Government despite losing the popular vote and I believe Labour did the same in Feb 1974 so there's plenty of precedent if the numbers work well for the Conservatives but the seats don't.
It's easy to forget but Cameron will have been Conservative leader for nearly ten years by the election - I don't see him staying a full five-year term until 2020 which would make him a longer-serving leader than either Margaret Thatcher or Winston Churchill.
Carnyx. This Government can be blamed for a Scottish "Yes" vote, if God forbid that occurs, as it could have put a Devomax deal on the ballot paper. Worse than Lord North then.
Can't we all agree that London is fantastic, and its entire population is among the most beautiful, dynamic, sexy, perfect witty, intelligent and stylish in the World? Wouldn't that be easier?
Yes.
I have a love-hate relationship with the capital. I lived there for nearly five years up to '94, and had a shit-but-shining time there. When I go back, I love the place *until* I have to travel in rush hour. Then I hate it.
The other week I went to the exhibition at Charles's gaff, and because my meeting was mercifully short, walked instead of getting the tube. It made me fall in love with London all over again.
But would I live there? I'm not so sure.
It's not for everyone. But I love it. Most people who claim to hate it are tourists who have seen around 1% of it.
Mr. Jessop, I agree. Walking is the best way of getting round central London, which is a remarkably small place (from St James's Square to the Bank is only a couple of miles and I can walk it comfortably in about 40 minutes, if I don't succumb to temptation). Its also the most enjoyable way of getting around; I just love revelling in the history of the place. For example, The Strand these days is just a very busy, rather tacky thoroughfare mostly filled with tourists, but there is nigh on a thousand years of history in that one street to think about as you walk up it.
The tube is just disgusting and very expensive. The last time I used it (because the Train into Town was late) they charged me £4 to go from London Bridge to Holborn.
Mr. Jessop, I agree. Walking is the best way of getting round central London, which is a remarkably small place (from St James's Square to the Bank is only a couple of miles and I can walk it comfortably in about 40 minutes, if I don't succumb to temptation). Its also the most enjoyable way of getting around; I just love revelling in the history of the place. For example, The Strand these days is just a very busy, rather tacky thoroughfare mostly filled with tourists, but there is nigh on a thousand years of history in that one street to think about as you walk up it.
The tube is just disgusting and very expensive. The last time I used it (because the Train into Town was late) they charged me £4 to go from London Bridge to Holborn.
I love discovering a place for the first time by walking through it: you get such a great view of things: if you see a blue plaque you can read it, or look at some weird architectural detail (*). The only problem is that you get a linear slice, and that can give the wrong impression. On the other hand, you can really see some wonders you would miss when driving or cycling.
By walking, you are more connected to the place.
(*) I love architecture, but despite having read many books on it, I find it hard to tell my equilateral pointed arch from my lancet arch.
Mr. Jessop, I agree. Walking is the best way of getting round central London, which is a remarkably small place (from St James's Square to the Bank is only a couple of miles and I can walk it comfortably in about 40 minutes, if I don't succumb to temptation). Its also the most enjoyable way of getting around; I just love revelling in the history of the place. For example, The Strand these days is just a very busy, rather tacky thoroughfare mostly filled with tourists, but there is nigh on a thousand years of history in that one street to think about as you walk up it.
The tube is just disgusting and very expensive. The last time I used it (because the Train into Town was late) they charged me £4 to go from London Bridge to Holborn.
Even though I do not live in London, I find an Oyster card very convenient for when I arrive at Euston and quite reasonable.
I do like London, even when I worked near St. Paul's and now that younger son has acquired a residence not far from Seat T, then I shall try and visit more.
Most capital cities are interesting to walk around due to their history. I found Berlin fascinating when it was still suffering from bomb and shell damage and one could walk around both parts of that divided city.
Surely all true Londoners have a place in the country?
Precisely, Richard.
Can we now spend two days defining "in the country"?
Very embarrassing for you Avery.
It is west of the Chiswick roundabout.
You mean Hogarth roundabout?
Chiswick House, just to the west of there, was definitely Lord Burlington's country place*
edit: * although, having seen ALP's remark, I would point out that it is more of an architect's model than a suburban villa.
There are two different roundabouts - Chiswick Roundabout is about a mile west of Hogarth Roundabout
Indeed there are. But being a charitable person I assumed that he had muddled up the names of the roundabouts rather than forgot the geographic location of Lord B's hunting lodge
Comments
It is west of the Chiswick roundabout.
As an aside, it's telling just how long a shadow Rome casts, even now. The Capitol building in America, for example, was made after the Empire fell but has many elements of Greco-Roman architecture.
Even more Palladian than Stourhead.
You'll just encourage Charles to dismiss it as a mere suburban villa.
Francis Elliott - The Times (Lefty rag etc etc) "Number 10 shifts position on reform to MPs self-regulation. Y'day he "stands by current system" today "very open" to ideas to improve."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26919928
The alternative is a dire concept. Are the two positions you quote incompatible?
Sunderland will probably beat the spuds now I've done that !
http://www.vauxhallandkennington.org.uk/firstbridge.shtml
Timbers 30cm in diameter forced into the river/marshbed doesn't seem temporary, and they were 6,000 years old. Bronze age finds were also found in the area.
I think you're right in that the Romans formed the first significant settlement, but given London's location, it would make sense for there to have been a river crossing in the area, even if that was just a ferry for times when the river was unfordable.
Why oh Why every time that I clear cookies does Vanilla not recognise my password - I have to ask for an email to reset it - I always use the same password - very annoying.
Trouble is, no-one in the Tory camp is pointing to the Better Together campaign and saying they must do much better in holding the union together. There's no-one in September going to be saying "I TOLD you this was going to happen..." If the Scots vote with glee to condemn England to continuous Tory rule, how is Cameron supposed to stop that from London? The Tories have already pulled all but one lone MP down below Hadrian's Wall in preparation for Scotland going solo. If Better Together is a failure, it is largely a failure of Labour - under Darling - to stop its vote from defecting to Yes. How is Cameron responsible for that?
Ironically, the Miller affair suggests that Cameron is prepared to "do the decent thing", even when it is not in his best political interests. So maybe he will pick up the pearl-handled revolver and a 20 year-old malt and slope off to the library....
Probably.
I am assuming all this London stuff is a clever code about some cool outfit (no doubt with its own website) that can only be talked about by allusion. Otherwise it is really delusional.
2) Let the press push him around over this one and they'll be back for more.
3) Thanks to the leadership challenge rules, he needs to keep the proportion of his party who harbour grudges against him below 15%. Once you count the people who oppose him for ideological reasons this doesn't give him a lot of leeway to create a bunch of narked-off ex-ministers.
I don't think so. His mum was a Yorkshire lass (Helena discoverer of the true cross) and his dad died in York, but I think the man himself was born in what is now Serbia.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/sack-maria-miller-and-forget-about-expenses-reforms-tory-mps-tell-david-cameron-9243652.html
But we're perhaps getting into nomenclature: if you're talking about the location of the Roman city, you might well be right: further away, but still inside modern London, you might be wrong. There must have been a pre-Roman crossing of the Thames in that area, and where you get crossings, you get settlements, however small.
There was no settlement at the City of London. There were settlements at Westminster and Fleetside (and, I think, Tyburn). Now iSam might dispute they were part of 'true London' but I think most people would accept them as relevant to the question at hand
Your mention of the Wall (which BTW is all in England, pace Mr Rory Stewart MP, who shows a much inferior understanding of Roman archaeology than some on this site) prompts a quote from Kipling -
Legate, I had the news last night – my cohort ordered home
By ships to Portus Itius and thence by road to Rome.
I’ve marched the companies aboard, the arms are stowed below:
Now let another take my sword. Command me not to go!
....
Legate, I come to you in tears – My cohort ordered home!
I’ve served in Britain forty years. What should I do in Rome?
Here is my heart, my soul, my mind – the only life I know.
I cannot leave it all behind. Command me not to go!
- and from anther poem -
Rome never looks where she treads.
Always her heavy hooves fall
On our stomachs, our hearts or our heads;
And Rome never heeds when we bawl.
Her sentries pass on -- that is all,
And we gather behind them in hordes,
And plot to reconquer the Wall,
With only our tongues for our swords ...
Chiswick House, just to the west of there, was definitely Lord Burlington's country place*
edit: * although, having seen ALP's remark, I would point out that it is more of an architect's model than a suburban villa.
I also saw on the TV series where Rory Stewart raced over open ground and over the wall, so I assume he is now safely on the right side. But we might have to get word to John Stevenson, MP for Carlisle....
Poor Antoninus Pius. One of the best emperors but gets forgotten compared to Trajan, Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius [who is overrated].
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_rVzBt20N0
*chortle*
http://tinyurl.com/pkojq9y
The other week I went to the exhibition at Charles's gaff, and because my meeting was mercifully short, walked instead of getting the tube. It made me fall in love with London all over again.
But would I live there? I'm not so sure.
As I recall, Tim Aker was quite a vocal Conservative until he "saw the light" or "surrendered to the dark side" (delete as appropriate).
On-topic, the "nightmare scenario" of the Conservatives narrowly winning the popular vote but Labour winning most seats should be concentrating minds across the political spectrum.
We come back as always to the arithmetic - could a Coalition 2 work in the HoC with a majority of say 10-20 seats ? Would the two parties want it to ?
My long-held view is the LDs will go into Opposition after 2015 irrespective of the result. I just don't see the appetite for another five years of this and I suspect the same may be true in many parts of the Conservative party.
As for Labour, if they are within touching distance (fewer than 10) of a majority, I suspect they'll form a minority administration safe in the knowledge no one will want an immediate second election.
The Conservatives in 1951 formed a Government despite losing the popular vote and I believe Labour did the same in Feb 1974 so there's plenty of precedent if the numbers work well for the Conservatives but the seats don't.
It's easy to forget but Cameron will have been Conservative leader for nearly ten years by the election - I don't see him staying a full five-year term until 2020 which would make him a longer-serving leader than either Margaret Thatcher or Winston Churchill.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/10598913/10-things-real-Londoners-know-about-their-city.html
This Government can be blamed for a Scottish "Yes" vote, if God forbid that occurs, as it could have put a Devomax deal on the ballot paper. Worse than Lord North then.
'A man who is tired of London, sir, is tired of life'
Was deselected by local Conservative group
http://www.romfordrecorder.co.uk/news/politics/conservative_mayor_of_havering_cllr_eric_munday_defects_to_ukip_1_3527644?usurv=skip
Mr. Jessop, I agree. Walking is the best way of getting round central London, which is a remarkably small place (from St James's Square to the Bank is only a couple of miles and I can walk it comfortably in about 40 minutes, if I don't succumb to temptation). Its also the most enjoyable way of getting around; I just love revelling in the history of the place. For example, The Strand these days is just a very busy, rather tacky thoroughfare mostly filled with tourists, but there is nigh on a thousand years of history in that one street to think about as you walk up it.
The tube is just disgusting and very expensive. The last time I used it (because the Train into Town was late) they charged me £4 to go from London Bridge to Holborn.
Julia Gillard: Game of Thrones has parallels with my time as Australian prime minister
http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2014/apr/07/game-of-thrones-parallels-prime-minister
By walking, you are more connected to the place.
(*) I love architecture, but despite having read many books on it, I find it hard to tell my equilateral pointed arch from my lancet arch.
Even though I do not live in London, I find an Oyster card very convenient for when I arrive at Euston and quite reasonable.
I do like London, even when I worked near St. Paul's and now that younger son has acquired a residence not far from Seat T, then I shall try and visit more.
Most capital cities are interesting to walk around due to their history. I found Berlin fascinating when it was still suffering from bomb and shell damage and one could walk around both parts of that divided city.
http://sports.williamhill.com/bet/en-gb/betting/e/5848553/Maria-Miller-Specials.html
Maria Miller To Stay In Office Until The 2015 General Election: 2/1
Rather good value, that.
From what I can tell it shows that there is a defensible narrative that Labour could tell about the economy, if they were interested in doing so.
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2012/07/travelling-in-time-plus-swords-and-sorcery-.html
I will be in North London tonight if you are around maybe have a chat over a pint? Theres a UKIP party to go to!
Im going to be in No London tonight if you fancy a chat over a pint? Theres a UKIP party to go to!