GENBRIT-L ArchivesArchiver > GENBRIT > 2003-07 > 1057740869
Subject: Re: counties; was Interesting children
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 03 08:54:29 GMT
References: <%9TKa.2736$QA2.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <gioNa.2705$4O4.180183@newsf <LwycqXAgDwC$Ew3i@westberks.demon.co.uk>
In article <LwycqXAgDwC$>,
Roy Bailey <> wrote:
>You know, I never had so much of a problem with the new 1974 counties as most
>people. It seemed sensible to me to make a local authority area out of a large
>conurbation such as Bristol, because over the years its catchment area had
>spread out into the adjoining counties of Somerset and Glos. The same reasoning
>applied to Tyne and Wear and Cleveland, and, to a lesser extent, Berkshire,
>where we lost the Oxford-looking section north of the Downs.
And, to add insult to injury, got Slough in exchange.
|Re: counties; was Interesting children by (dcw)|