Discussion in 'London and the South East' started by Orang Utan, Nov 2, 2005.
Same with Pimlico its SW2 I think?
No, SW3 I think
And you can keep your Harrow; possibly one of the worst towns in London.
It's not. It's in Central London. Just as the London Eye is.
And Fulham is most certainly South London, regardless of its respective position to the river.
No it isn't
<bangs head on desk>
You are talking absolute shite.
For hundreds of years there was a strong distinction made betweeen the different parts of London which was seen as comprising of three contrasting parts - cities of London and Westminster and the district of Southwark on the Surrey side of London Bridge at a later date the East End/docks region also developed a distinct identity. Whilst the London has expanded over the last three centuries, and other districts have been added those distinct divisions which amongst other things gives the area South of the Thames a distinct identity still carry weight.
Pimlico is SW1
SW2 is Brixton and SW3 is Chelsea
poll to settle things once and for all -
I suggest you buy a compass because you seem to have a rather unclear concept of the four cardinal points.
Study that map carefuly and do kindly explain how exactly St. Thomas' Hospital or Waterloo Station are "South" London.
duuur. BECAUSE THEY ARE SOUTH OF THE RIVER
No, they are not; at that particular point on the map, they are east of the river.
Because they are south of the River Thames. Seriously, it is that simple.
OK - you walk north of Waterloo and see where you end up
Erm, I didn't say they were South of London or even South of the City of the London; I said they were in South London; the area defined to be South London. That area is anything that is on the South side of the Thames. Even when the river travels North to South the banks are still defined as North and South banks.
You can bleat on much as you like but that doesn't make you any less wrong.
And what does that prove?
I'm talking about that particular part of the river - the one posted in the link - and well you know it. Waterloo is east of the river at that particular point in London, not south of it.
And when exactly was this decided upon, and by whom?
Last week. By me.
It is also south of it, silly.
It proves that there is a river north of Waterloo and therefore it follows that Waterloo is south of the river. Duuh
Oh I don't know, let me think, by pretty much everyone in London since, hmmm, the Romans?
You are off your nut if don't think Waterloo is in South London. Either that you are just being a pain in the ass for the sake of it.
And what are you taking as the center of London to decide that Waterloo is Central London? Well? Or are you just making shit up as you go along.
It is widely accepted that in London if you are South of the River you are in South London. So far none of yours bollocks has done anything to disprove.
Can I ask where in London you live?
It's not south of it at the particular point to which we were referring.
No, you are dead right; Waterloo is not south of the river!
And my point is that the same river is also to the west of Waterloo; therefore it follows that Waterloo is also east of the river.
Are you thick?
I didn't say it wasn't south of any point of the river; I said it was east of the point in map that was posted.
From that perspective it is east of the river.
Yes it is you fuckwit
No, it's not.
Walk east over Westminster Bridge Road, and see where you end up.
You are a fucking plank. If you walk directly North from virtually all points on the south side of the river you will hit the river. That is a fact. Therefore those points are SOUTH OF THE RIVER.
Why are you so hard of thinking?
Can I just this straight; are you seriously arguing that St. Thomas' Hospital is NOT south of the river?
Separate names with a comma.