A municipality is a city or town which is governed by its own locally-appointed officials.
It would be part of Greater London, not the city. The British don't use the term 'downtown'. When one is referring to London, we would generally refer to it as The City of, or Greater London. I know someone who lives in Chessington, and refer to themselves as living in Greater London.acs121 wrote:I'm not talking about downtown, but the city itself. Brixton isn't downtown London, but it is London.
As i noted and badly drew in my previous post, the City of London is tiny, it is infact the third smallest city in the UK by population, it's also only 1.12 square miles in area (2.9 square km). The only cities with smaller populations are 'St Davids' & 'St Asaph', both in Wales.
When one visits London, you are visiting Greater London, not the city of. If you did only visit the city, it'd be a very short trip, with not much to do.
Brixton is 100% not part of the City of London. The most geographical indication is that it is at the wrong side of the river Thames, plus another 4 or 5km south of the City limits.
Greater London is a region of England, and the administrative boundaries for London, which again is not the same as the City of London. It encompasses a very large area, with over 8 million inhabitants, compared to the less than 10k of the City of London.
This is also now entirely off topic, the answer to the question has been covered quite well by now. You're entirely safe in London, unless you explicitly ignore advice and go looking for trouble.
For reference, “Central London” is probably 7 or 8 times the size of the City of London. As for Brixton, it’s zone 2, which is the first band of areas outside of Central, and is now one of the quickest gentrifying areas in the whole city. Peckham isn’t far behind. Harlesden I shan’t comment on... it’s not great. You might go to Brixton, you wouldn’t go to Harlesden. In either case, you’re probably alright, although I’d keep a close eye on my belongings (as I would everywhere)
London, like every super metropolis, swings wildly from small area to small area. Where I live is fairly recently gentrified from a rather less than salubrious area. Many of the areas to the east of here still retain such a reputation.
In the last 24 hours people have been killed in Northumberland Park, Walthamstow and Hackney. All of these are within a few miles. Whilst tragic these will likely prove to be somewhat gang related. The threat to the general public (including tourists) is obscenely low.
Americans seem to have latched on to London having “no go areas”, peddled by the likes of Farage and Hopkins, who inexplicably get serious airtime on Fox et al. They conveniently ignore the ghettoised state of some of their major cities. Would I go to South Central LA? No but that’s because it’s dangerous.
Why is it so? Well everyone right of centre blames immigration, but London has been a melting pot of cultures and nationalities since it was established as a port in Roman times (and indeed before that). What they like to ignore is the swingeing cuts imposed by this government on police budgets, especially those in London, which have reduced community policing to a pointless plastic badged volunteer operation.
As for our murder rate being higher than New York’s, well... that may be the case for individual months. Over a larger sample (2017), there were about 130 murders in London (including terror attacks) - last year was the first year on record that New York’s homicide rate fell below three hundred. So is London less safe than New York? Is it boat...
(Seems Chrill made this point first... meh)
So to answer your question - I’ve been living here five and a half years. I’ve never felt actively scared. Do I avoid some places? Yes. Does that make them “no go areas” - absolutely not.
EDIT: I mean I’m surprised this has even come up. If you’re a tourist you’re unlucky if you have your wallet lifted, really unlucky if you get properly mugged, and downright wretched if you’re caught up in an incident which threatens your life. This probably mirrors most cities of many sizes.
I'm just reciting what I learnt at school.Dave wrote:Some confusion between the city of London, which Leftie refers to as “Greater London”, and the City of London, which is a very small part of town but was the first part of the city.
The only part that is actually termed a city, is roughly between Whitechapel & Covent Garden on the north side of the Thames, and no higher than the start of Bethnal Green & Clerkenwell. The rest is named (termed?) 'Greater London', which under varying definitions could be a county or an authoritive area. Split up into 32(?) distinct areas (ie: Hammersmith, Hackney, Kingston). However non of them are a cities, or part of the city.
Perhaps that definition i was taught has changed since 2000-2005, or the teached dumbed it down incase 13-17 year olds couldn't learn that much information, and i've known a lie for nearly two decades
and now im off to cry myself to sleep having realised i left high school now 13 years ago
- City ~ Core/Downtown (arguably it goes farther than that, but for all good reasons it might as well be)
- Greater London ~ City/Urban (I know there are urban census in the US)
- London "commuter" ~ Metro (so this could involve Guildford being counted under "London, work only"; Metro involves anything and everything that has connections to the city mentioned)
While the last two are entirely modernly defined, the first one is a relic of Roman history.
For the purpose of this discussion, I think it would be in good faith to assume that when we talk about London, we mean the whole part that has the mayor of London as its elected mayor, rather than the capital C city or whatever was inside the old wall (roughly the same area in my recollection?), just as we would no longer split hairs between New Amsterdam within the wall and the villages of Greenwich or Haarlem etc on Manhattan Island.Dave wrote:Some confusion between the city of London, which Leftie refers to as “Greater London”, and the City of London, which is a very small part of town but was the first part of the city.
New York is reasonably safe, so it may be the case that it is currently safer than London (we'd have to look at all violent crimes for the period), but it may also be that 47 over a few months is a statistical anomaly or a fluke uptick in gang violence. It's probably best to say that both cities are decently safe, and safer than they have been in the past.Chrill wrote:However, from January to March 2018 there have been more London murders than New York murders.
Thing is, if you could call the entirety of Long Island as part of NYC, Brighton could conceivably be called part of London.supermop wrote:For the purpose of this discussion, I think it would be in good faith to assume that when we talk about London, we mean the whole part that has the mayor of London as its elected mayor, rather than the capital C city or whatever was inside the old wall (roughly the same area in my recollection?), just as we would no longer split hairs between New Amsterdam within the wall and the villages of Greenwich or Haarlem etc on Manhattan Island.
London is a city. There is indeed the confusion of the actual City of London (now a Borough itself but a separate county also) and the City of Westminster (also a Borough but not a county). But by every definition of "city", London (or Greater London), is one.
The overall view of this thread is that London may be a fairly unsafe place to live depending on your background, your neighbourhood and your personal experience. This doesn't extend to American tourists who will come over and spew their dollars on tourist tat in zone 1 and - at a stretch - go to zone 2 for the museums and Camden.
Once you get to the outskirts of zone 2, London is a city for the people living in it, not for the horrors who infest zone 1 gesticulating wildly at, e.g., the Walkie Talkie (genuinely the ugliest building in town)
At least I was accurate with where tourists go then. I haven't been to London since the last TT-F meet there, and I didn't do any touristy things. Shall have to visit in a tourist manner at some point. I've never seen the Shard in person since it was completed, for example.Dave wrote:This doesn't extend to American tourists who will come over and spew their dollars on tourist tat in zone 1 and - at a stretch - go to zone 2 for the museums and Camden.
I'll be sure to fire off an email to Fartown High School expressing my displeasure at their half bottomed attempt at teaching London
Base Music Sets: OpenMSX | Scott Joplin Anthology | Traditional Winter Holiday Music | Modern Motion Music
Other Projects: 2CC Trams | Modern Waypoints | Sprite Sandbox & NewGRF Releases | Ideabox | Town Names | Isle of Sodor Scenario | Random Sprite Repository
Misc Topics: My Screenshots | Forgotten NewGRFs | Unfinished Graphics Sets | Stats Shack | RoadTypes?
I wouldn't consider any area of London a 'no-go area' for tourists, genuinely. There are areas that might make tourists a bit uncomfortable, but I don't think anyone would have trouble dragging a suitcase through any part of London during the day. And I live in a bit of London that's often considered a crime hotspot.
Of course, the comparison with New York also shows the wonderful progress that New York has made. I won't play down however how worrying London's recent murder rise has been for us residents (although the US national average is still 4 times as much!).
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests