# Why are Chelsea and Putney said to be in South London?



## Orang Utan (Nov 2, 2005)

There's a big river in London called the Thames - Putney and Chelsea are on the wrong side of it to be placed in South London, so why do people say they are in South London?


----------



## wiskey (Nov 2, 2005)

putney is south of the water


----------



## innit (Nov 2, 2005)

It certainly is


----------



## peppery (Nov 2, 2005)

Are you talking about Postcodes?


----------



## rennie (Nov 2, 2005)

chelsea is SW3. SO MAYBE THAT'S WHY!


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 2, 2005)

wiskey said:
			
		

> putney is south of the water


Is it? Hmmm. Last time I was in Putney I was drunk, so maybe I got it confused   

The question still applies for Chelsea - SW3 postcode. That's just wrong. It's not got the right vibe for South London


----------



## rennie (Nov 2, 2005)

you mean it doesn't have any vibe at all, eh?


----------



## milesy (Nov 2, 2005)

even though it's north of the river chelsea is as level south as battersea and camberwell, and also further south than bermondsey, which is considered south london.


----------



## innit (Nov 2, 2005)

milesy said:
			
		

> even though it's north of the river chelsea is as level south as battersea and camberwell, and also further south than bermondsey, which is considered south london.


Oh.  That's the proper answer.

I get so disappointed when milesy does proper posts


----------



## nogoodboyo (Nov 2, 2005)

Chelsea isn't south london, and those who say it is are wrong.  The river divides north and south - although NOT north-west and south-west.


----------



## T & P (Nov 2, 2005)

The river is not the deciding factor of what is North and South London though. Especially given it doesn't run in a straight West-East trajectory by any means. You can say something is north or south of the river for sure... but Chelsea, or at least many parts of it, are not North or even Central London by any stretch of the imagination. They're far more South London than anything else.

Many other parts are Central London regardless of whether they are north or south of the river (Waterloo for instance).


----------



## JWH (Nov 2, 2005)

Postcodes are decided by whether they are N/W/E/S of Mount Pleasant sorting office. The codes were developed in WW2 to help women + others learn the streets while they were covering for conscripted male posties. (iirc).


----------



## Barney Bee (Nov 2, 2005)

T & P said:
			
		

> The river is not the deciding factor of what is North and South London though.


Yes it is.
Chelsea is north of the river and therefore not South London. It's actually West London.
I've heard Putney referred to as South Chelsea  
Reason for edit: was talking about Chelsea not Putney


----------



## golightly (Nov 2, 2005)

Battersea is referred to as South Chelsea.  Putney is no where near.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 2, 2005)

Chelsea likes to lend itself a false sense of stylishness by pretending to be "Sarf Lahndahn". 

They don't carry it off very well though!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 2, 2005)

golightly said:
			
		

> Battersea is referred to as South Chelsea.  Putney is no where near.



I wouldn't say that 2.5-3 miles down the Thames shore is "nowhere near".


----------



## golightly (Nov 2, 2005)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> I wouldn't say that 2.5-3 miles down the Thames shore is "nowhere near".



Nowhere near in respect to being regarded as the same location.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 2, 2005)

golightly said:
			
		

> Nowhere near in respect to being regarded as the same location.



Well obviously!

But near in regard to being geographically close.


----------



## Maggot (Nov 2, 2005)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> I wouldn't say that 2.5-3 miles down the Thames shore is "nowhere near".


Compared to Battersea which is just across the water, it's not near.


----------



## java1200 (Nov 2, 2005)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> Chelsea likes to lend itself a false sense of stylishness by pretending to be "Sarf Lahndahn".



You are deluded.


----------



## tim (Nov 3, 2005)

There is a point at the strange end of the Piccadilly line where the Westbound trains become 'Southbound' and presumably (I'm not  sure as these being points that I have no desire ever to go East or North from) the the 'Eastbound' ones become 'Northbound'


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 3, 2005)

Barney Bee said:
			
		

> Yes it is.
> Chelsea is north of the river and therefore not South London.



Correct. The other arguments are rubbish. It's all about the river


----------



## Dr. Furface (Nov 3, 2005)

Yes, the Thames is a natural divide - you either live NORTH of it or SOUTH of it (apart from people who live over Twickenham/Richmond way, but that's too far west to be of any interest), and that's how Londoners naturally think of it too. Postal codes are just for postal workers, that's all, and we shouldn't let the bloody post office dictate how we think! 

Chelsea is NORTH London. Putney is SOUTH.


----------



## stroober (Nov 3, 2005)

I livin putney at it sw15 so its south west innit so it in wandsworth

it fooking ain't south chelsea!!!!!


----------



## tim (Nov 3, 2005)

stroober said:
			
		

> I livin putney at it sw15 so its south west innit so it in wandsworth
> 
> it fooking ain't south chelsea!!!!!



South Chelsea is what deluded foreign students call Brixton, isn't it?


----------



## stroober (Nov 3, 2005)

THat college is a stone throw from brixon station!!!


----------



## Juice Terry (Nov 3, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Correct. The other arguments are rubbish. It's all about the river



nah bollocks by that reasoning Millwall is in North London and I'd like to see you try and persuade the local residents of that.


----------



## Maggot (Nov 3, 2005)

Juice Terry said:
			
		

> nah bollocks by that reasoning Millwall is in North London and I'd like to see you try and persuade the local residents of that.


Eh? Since when has Millwall been North of the river?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 3, 2005)

java1200 said:
			
		

> You are deluded.



No dearie, I'm taking the piss.


----------



## Dubversion (Nov 3, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Correct. The other arguments are rubbish. It's all about the river




what, even though at points the river runs more south to north than west to east, and thus divides west and east not north and south. etc?

anyway, the South Chelsea School Of English is in Brixton so that means it.


----------



## Dan U (Nov 3, 2005)

victoria is SW1. thats central surely?


----------



## magneze (Nov 3, 2005)

tim said:
			
		

> South Chelsea is what deluded foreign students call Brixton, isn't it?


 That sign makes me smile every time I pass it.


----------



## peppery (Nov 3, 2005)

T & P said:
			
		

> The river is not the deciding factor of what is North and South London though.



Yes it is.


----------



## java1200 (Nov 3, 2005)

No, it's not.


----------



## golightly (Nov 4, 2005)

The defining factor between North London and South london is whether it is North or South of the fucking river.  End of.


----------



## mango5 (Nov 4, 2005)

Right!  The River divides.  Postcodes are for The Post.  Chelsea is North - doesn't matter what the 'vibe' is or wants to be.  Putney?  You were drunk.  It's South.  All this Central London stuff is a red herring, for discussion elsewhere.  As is the distinction between geographical distance and whether things are 'near' or not.  
Happy to help


----------



## java1200 (Nov 4, 2005)

golightly said:
			
		

> The defining factor between North London and South london is whether it is North or South of the fucking river.  End of.



Bollocks.


----------



## java1200 (Nov 4, 2005)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> No dearie, I'm taking the piss.



So was I; we're funny people, aren't we?


----------



## tim (Nov 4, 2005)

Maggot said:
			
		

> Eh? Since when has Millwall been North of the river?



The place always, the football team not for some years.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Nov 4, 2005)

tim said:
			
		

> the football team not for some years.


And currently, they're going south at a rate of knots.


----------



## T & P (Nov 4, 2005)

Fulham (firmly north of the river) is not more North London than Artantica is. It's not even Central London. Fulham is most definitely South London- or South West London at best.

The only difference the river makes to London geography is the number of cabs to be found after dark.


----------



## tim (Nov 4, 2005)

T & P said:
			
		

> Fulham (firmly north of the river) is not more North London than Artantica is. It's not even Central London. Fulham is most definitely South London- or South West London at best.
> 
> The only difference the river makes to London geography is the number of cabs to be found after dark.



No tube network either


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 4, 2005)

java1200 said:
			
		

> So was I; we're funny people, aren't we?



Well yes, but where I'm funny as in "humourous", you're funny as in "peculiar".


----------



## zenie (Nov 4, 2005)

T & P said:
			
		

> Fulham (firmly north of the river) is not more North London than Artantica is. It's not even Central London.* Fulham is most definitely South London- or South West London at best.*
> 
> The only difference the river makes to London geography is the number of cabs to be found after dark.




Agreed how on earth people can say 'North London' and Fulham in the same breath is beyond me.


----------



## Barney Bee (Nov 4, 2005)

Not all of London is North or South - there's East and West too. Fulham (for example) is West London not South or North.
However, if somewhere is North of the river it can never correctly be refered to as South London - and vice versa.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 5, 2005)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> what, even though at points the river runs more south to north than west to east, and thus divides west and east not north and south. etc?


yes


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 5, 2005)

Fulham is in West London - is it fuck in South


----------



## java1200 (Nov 5, 2005)

It's south-west.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 5, 2005)

Tisn't - it's North of the River, so it isn't south


----------



## peppery (Nov 5, 2005)

Fulham = WEST LONDON ,not south. To get to south London you cross a bridge. I have never heard anyone refer to any part of London North of the river as South London, it isn't.


----------



## hippogriff (Nov 5, 2005)

JWH said:
			
		

> Postcodes are decided by whether they are N/W/E/S of Mount Pleasant sorting office. The codes were developed in WW2 to help women + others learn the streets while they were covering for conscripted male posties. (iirc).



Oh no they weren't  

London Postal Districts were intoduced by Rowland Hill in 1857/58 and originally comprised EC, WC, NW, N, NE, E, SE, S, SW & W. In 1866, after a survey by Trollope, NE was merged with N and in 1868 S was abolished and divided between SW & SE. The reason for the introduction was to avoid problems with vague addresses caused by streets in different parts of London which shared the same name. 

Between the 1860's and 1930's postal districts were introduced in other major cities.

Postcodes were trialled in Norwich starting in 1959, and the present system was introduced in 1966, starting in Croydon and finishing with the re-coding of Norwich in 1974.


----------



## JWH (Nov 5, 2005)

oh, well in that case, I'm totally wrong! I can't remember where I picked that up from - probably either here or the Guardian.


----------



## T & P (Nov 5, 2005)

peppery said:
			
		

> Fulham = WEST LONDON ,not south. To get to south London you cross a bridge. I have never heard anyone refer to any part of London North of the river as South London, it isn't.


 So Westminster is North London then? Or East London perhaps?


----------



## peppery (Nov 5, 2005)

T & P said:
			
		

> So Westminster is North London then? Or East London perhaps?



Its central London, don't you know anything? How long have you lived here?


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 5, 2005)

T & P said:
			
		

> So Westminster is North London then? Or East London perhaps?


It's quite simple - South London is south of the river, and East, West and North London are North of the river.


----------



## Maggot (Nov 5, 2005)

T & P said:
			
		

> Fulham (firmly north of the river) is not more North London than Artantica is.


Where's Artantica?


----------



## java1200 (Nov 5, 2005)

peppery said:
			
		

> I have never heard anyone refer to any part of London North of the river as South London, it isn't.



That's clearly bollocks. Lots of people call Chelsea and Fulham south west London.


----------



## peppery (Nov 5, 2005)

java1200 said:
			
		

> That's clearly bollocks. Lots of people call Chelsea and Fulham south west London.



No one I've ever met in my life has ever called Chelsea or Fulham SW London, who are these people, are they out of towners? Are they going by post codes?


----------



## java1200 (Nov 5, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Tisn't - it's North of the River, so it isn't south



Definitely south-west. 

Looks like we'll have to agree to differ.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 5, 2005)

java1200 said:
			
		

> That's clearly bollocks. Lots of people call Chelsea and Fulham south west London.



Yes, but they're _wrong_


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 5, 2005)

java1200 said:
			
		

> Looks like we'll have to agree to differ.


No we won't


----------



## java1200 (Nov 5, 2005)

peppery said:
			
		

> No one I've ever met in my life has ever called Chelsea or Fulham SW London, who are these people, are they out of towners? Are they going by post codes?



The BBC, for a start, call both Fulham and Chelsea SW London, as do the Met, and LU.


----------



## Maggot (Nov 5, 2005)

peppery said:
			
		

> No one I've ever met in my life has ever called Chelsea or Fulham SW London, who are these people, are they out of towners? Are they going by post codes?


News reports sometimes do that.


----------



## peppery (Nov 5, 2005)

java1200 said:
			
		

> The BBC, for a start, call both Fulham and Chelsea SW London, as do the Met, and LU.



As I said before no one I've ever know since I've lived here has ever called Chelsea or Fulham SW London. BBC and ITV local news have referred to them as West London as well.


----------



## java1200 (Nov 5, 2005)

peppery said:
			
		

> As I said before no one I've ever know since I've lived here has ever called Chelsea or Fulham SW London. BBC and ITV local news have referred to them as West London as well.



Well plenty of people that I've known have, including born and bred Londoners. 

The original postcodes were applied given their proximity to The City of London; Chelsea and Fulham are both south west of The City.


----------



## peppery (Nov 5, 2005)

java1200 said:
			
		

> Well plenty of people that I've known have, including born and bred Londoners.
> 
> The original postcodes were applied given their proximity to The City of London; Chelsea and Fulham are both south west of The City.



But I've lived here 35 years and never come across anyone who was born here thats called Chelsea or Fulham SW London. The only people that would do that are the ones who think that the London Underground map is an accurate representation of London.


----------



## java1200 (Nov 5, 2005)

peppery said:
			
		

> But I've lived here 35 years and never come across anyone who was born here thats called Chelsea or Fulham SW London. The only people that would do that are the ones who think that the London Underground map is an accurate representation of London.



Where did I say that I think that the underground map is an accurate representation of London? 

I've given you my reason for thinking that it's SW London: the fact that it's south west of the City; I have heard Chelsea and Fulham being called south west and west London by various people. I find it difficult to believe that in 35 years you've only heard it called west London.

You're not going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours, so let's end this discussion right now.


----------



## T & P (Nov 5, 2005)

peppery said:
			
		

> Its central London, don't you know anything? How long have you lived here?


 Thank you. So we've established that the river does not define the cardinal points of the city.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 5, 2005)

T & P said:
			
		

> Thank you. So we've established that the river does not define the cardinal points of the city.


It does though - it defines South London


----------



## T & P (Nov 5, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> It's quite simple - South London is south of the river, and East, West and North London are North of the river.


 Fulham is not West London by any stretch of the imagination. South West at best.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 5, 2005)

Yes it is, and so is Hammersmith and Chiswick while we're at it


----------



## java1200 (Nov 5, 2005)

You keep changing your mind. You said that the river defines what is north and south; following your argument to its logical conclusion, Hammersmith and Chiswick would be north London.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 5, 2005)

West London


----------



## java1200 (Nov 5, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> West London



arrgh, fuck it.


----------



## T & P (Nov 6, 2005)

Listen, the way I see it the river offers a good guidance of what is North and South but cannot be applied as a rule because it wouldn't work in all areas.

Can anyone really say that the London Eye or the Old City Hall are in South London? Or Waterloo station for that matter?


----------



## Cotch (Nov 6, 2005)

Chelsea = North London, Putney = South London


----------



## T & P (Nov 6, 2005)

Cotch said:
			
		

> Chelsea = North London


 Not by a long mile- or four/five miles as the case might be.

'South West' is the closest definitition... though its northern tip could almost pass off as Central London.


----------



## lighterthief (Nov 6, 2005)

T & P said:
			
		

> Can anyone really say that the London Eye or the Old City Hall are in South London? Or Waterloo station for that matter?



No, that's _central_ London


----------



## Cotch (Nov 7, 2005)

T & P said:
			
		

> Not by a long mile- or four/five miles as the case might be.
> 
> 'South West' is the closest definitition... though its northern tip could almost pass off as Central London.



Chelsea is north of the river and therefore it is North London. The river is the dividing line; it is as simple as that. And don't talk to me about SW postcodes; SW1 is further north than W6!


----------



## dogmatique (Nov 7, 2005)

T & P said:
			
		

> Can anyone really say that the London Eye or the Old _County_ Hall are in South London? Or Waterloo station for that matter?



Well where else are they?  Are you really saying that the South Bank isn't South?


----------



## T & P (Nov 7, 2005)

Cotch said:
			
		

> Chelsea is north of the river and therefore it is North London. The river is the dividing line; it is as simple as that. And don't talk to me about SW postcodes; SW1 is further north than W6!


 No it isn't. Has this been written or made official somewhere?

Chelsea is not North London. Fulham is not North London.

Waterloo is not South London. The Old City Hall is not South London.


----------



## T & P (Nov 7, 2005)

dogmatique said:
			
		

> Well where else are they?  Are you really saying that the South Bank isn't South?


 It's south of the river. But it's certainly north of South London.


----------



## dogmatique (Nov 7, 2005)

T & P said:
			
		

> Waterloo is not South London. The Old City Hall is not South London.



Oh yes they are.  (And it's County Hall...   )


----------



## tim (Nov 8, 2005)

T & P said:
			
		

> Waterloo is not South London.



Of course it's South London. It's where all the commuter trains start from and commuter trains are South London's answer to the tube. Victoria Station and Charing Cross Station are South London enclaves.


----------



## kea (Nov 8, 2005)

look you fools - there are 2 levels of description here. the first, the meta-level shall we say, is simply about whether a place is north or south of the river.
the second, more detailed, level is whether something is west, east, etc in addition to its position north or south of the river.

hence ...
chelsea is north of the river and in west london.
putney is south of the river and in west london.
battersea is south of the river and in south-west london.
camberwell is south of the river and in south london.
wandsworth is south of the river and in south-west london.
brixton is south of the river and in south london.
milwall is north of the river and in east london.
westminster is north of the river and in central london.
antarctica is north of the river and somewhat north of london.
hammersmith is north of the river and in west london.
chiswick is north of the river and in west london.
the london eye is south of the river and in central london.
the old city hall is south of the river and in central london.
waterloo station is south of the river and in central london.
the south bank is south of the river and in central london.
victoria station is north of the river and in central london.
charing cross station is north of the river and in central london.

see, dimwits?


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 8, 2005)

The problem is the river - it don't go east-west all the way through London.  Apart from it's twists and turns it does about as far as Lambeth/Westminster and then it takes a decidedly south-west direction.  After Fulham it heads NORTH for a bit to Hammersmith and then from Chiswick it regains a south-west heading.  BY the time it reaches Hampton it's WAY down into South-West London.

So if London (i.e. the City) is the centre, then North London and South London work OK defined by the river to the EAST but not so well the further WEST you go. 

Your Hammersmiths, Fulhams, Chiswicks, Chelsea, etc. are all in West London and they are all south of an imaginary line drawn east-west through the City, so they are probably south-west London.  In twenty seven years here I have never heard or seen any of them described seriously as either South or North London, with West or South-West always being used.

And as for Twickenham being so far out no one's interested ... bastards!


----------



## T & P (Nov 8, 2005)

tim said:
			
		

> Of course it's South London. It's where all the commuter trains start from and commuter trains are South London's answer to the tube. Victoria Station and Charing Cross Station are South London enclaves.


 Even though they're north of the river?


----------



## tim (Nov 9, 2005)

> On the India-Bangladesh border in the Indian district of Cooch-Behar, there are 92 exclaves of Bangladesh. Similarly, there are 106 exclaves of India inside Bangladesh. 21 of the Bangladeshi exclaves are embodied in Indian exclaves. 3 of the Indian exclaves are embodied in Bangladeshi exclaves. The largest Indian exclave, Balapara Khagrabari, embodies one Bangladeshi exclave, Upanchowki Bhajni, which itself embodies an Indian exclave called Dahala Khagrabari.






			
				T & P said:
			
		

> Even though they're north of the river?



Well they wouldn't be enclaves if they were South of the River would they!

That Wikipedia article shows that whatever the problems defining London geographically are nothing compared ith those Bengali vilagers living around the rather peculiar India Bangladesh border.



> On the India-Bangladesh border in the Indian district of Cooch-Behar, there are 92 exclaves of Bangladesh. Similarly, there are 106 exclaves of India inside Bangladesh. 21 of the Bangladeshi exclaves are embodied in Indian exclaves. 3 of the Indian exclaves are embodied in Bangladeshi exclaves. The largest Indian exclave, Balapara Khagrabari, embodies one Bangladeshi exclave, Upanchowki Bhajni, which itself embodies an Indian exclave called Dahala Khagrabari.


----------



## shagnasty (Nov 10, 2005)

i still have got the hump that middlesex was done away with we never had a post code until they made ha (harrow).you can keep your greater london


----------



## Cotch (Nov 10, 2005)

T & P said:
			
		

> No it isn't. Has this been written or made official somewhere?
> 
> Chelsea is not North London. Fulham is not North London.
> 
> Waterloo is not South London. The Old City Hall is not South London.



Anything north of the river is north london, anything south is south. It really is as simple as that. It doesn't stop them being West or East too but you are talking absolute crap if you believe Waterloo is not in South London.


----------



## cathal marcs (Nov 10, 2005)

Same with Pimlico its SW2 I think?


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 10, 2005)

cathal marcs said:
			
		

> Same with Pimlico its SW2 I think?



No, SW3 I think


----------



## Cotch (Nov 10, 2005)

shagnasty said:
			
		

> i still have got the hump that middlesex was done away with we never had a post code until they made ha (harrow).you can keep your greater london



And you can keep your Harrow; possibly one of the worst towns in London.


----------



## T & P (Nov 10, 2005)

Cotch said:
			
		

> Anything north of the river is north london, anything south is south. It really is as simple as that. It doesn't stop them being West or East too but you are talking absolute crap if you believe Waterloo is not in South 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.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 10, 2005)

No it isn't


----------



## kea (Nov 10, 2005)

<bangs head on desk>


----------



## Cotch (Nov 10, 2005)

T & P said:
			
		

> 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.



You are talking absolute shite.


----------



## tim (Nov 10, 2005)

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.


----------



## java1200 (Nov 10, 2005)

cathal marcs said:
			
		

> Same with Pimlico its SW2 I think?



Pimlico is SW1

SW2 is Brixton and SW3 is Chelsea


----------



## kea (Nov 10, 2005)

poll to settle things once and for all - 
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=139080


----------



## T & P (Nov 10, 2005)

Cotch said:
			
		

> You are talking absolute shite.



I suggest you buy a compass because you seem to have a rather unclear concept of the four cardinal points.


http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.s...rchp=newsearch.srf&dn=555&ax=522153&ay=176489

Study that map carefuly and do kindly explain how exactly St. Thomas' Hospital or Waterloo Station are "South" London.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 10, 2005)

T & P said:
			
		

> 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*


----------



## java1200 (Nov 10, 2005)

No, they are not; at that particular point on the map, they are east of the river.


----------



## Cotch (Nov 10, 2005)

T & P said:
			
		

> I suggest you buy a compass because you seem to have a rather unclear concept of the four cardinal points.
> 
> 
> http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.s...rchp=newsearch.srf&dn=555&ax=522153&ay=176489
> ...



Because they are south of the River Thames. Seriously, it is that simple.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 10, 2005)

java1200 said:
			
		

> No, they are not; at that particular point on the map, they are east of the river.



OK - you walk north of Waterloo and see where you end up


----------



## Cotch (Nov 10, 2005)

T & P said:
			
		

> I suggest you buy a compass because you seem to have a rather unclear concept of the four cardinal points.



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.


----------



## java1200 (Nov 10, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> OK - you walk north of Waterloo and see where you end up


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.


----------



## T & P (Nov 10, 2005)

Cotch said:
			
		

> 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 when exactly was this decided upon, and by whom?


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 10, 2005)

T & P said:
			
		

> And when exactly was this decided upon, and by whom?



Last week. By me.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 10, 2005)

java1200 said:
			
		

> 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.



It is also south of it, silly.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 10, 2005)

java1200 said:
			
		

> And what does that prove?


It proves that there is a river north of Waterloo and therefore it follows that Waterloo is south of the river. Duuh


----------



## Cotch (Nov 10, 2005)

T & P said:
			
		

> And when exactly was this decided upon, and by whom?



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?


----------



## java1200 (Nov 10, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> It is also south of it, silly.



It's not south of it at the particular point to which we were referring.


----------



## Cotch (Nov 10, 2005)

java1200 said:
			
		

> It's not south of it at the particular point to which we were referring.



What? Waterloo?

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?ll=51.504028,-0.112910&spn=0.009732,0.021404&hl=en

No, you are dead right; Waterloo is not south of the river!

Fuckwit


----------



## java1200 (Nov 10, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> It proves that there is a river north of Waterloo and therefore it follows that Waterloo is south of the river. Duuh



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.


----------



## java1200 (Nov 10, 2005)

Cotch said:
			
		

> What? Waterloo?
> 
> http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?ll=51.504028,-0.112910&spn=0.009732,0.021404&hl=en
> 
> ...



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.

This map:

Click

From that perspective it is east of the river.


----------



## Cotch (Nov 10, 2005)

java1200 said:
			
		

> It's not south of it at the particular point to which we were referring.



Yes it is you fuckwit


----------



## java1200 (Nov 10, 2005)

Cotch said:
			
		

> Yes it is you fuckwit



No, it's not. 

Walk east over Westminster Bridge Road, and see where you end up.


----------



## Cotch (Nov 10, 2005)

java1200 said:
			
		

> 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?


----------



## Cotch (Nov 10, 2005)

java1200 said:
			
		

> No, it's not.
> 
> Walk east over Westminster Bridge Road, and see where you end up.



Can I just this straight; are you seriously arguing that St. Thomas' Hospital is NOT south of the river?


----------



## T & P (Nov 10, 2005)

END OF


----------



## kea (Nov 10, 2005)

can i interrupt this love-in to ask a question? 

just assuming, for a moment, that we play along with java's charade - java, i assume that you accept that SOME places are south london, right? so where's the dividing line? take the case of st thomas's hospital for example - would you agree that elephant&castle is south london? if so, at what point between e&c and st thomas's does south london stop?


----------



## java1200 (Nov 10, 2005)

Cotch said:
			
		

> 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?



But I'm not disputing that waterloo is south of some parts of the river; what I'm trying to say is from the perspective of the map that T&P posted, Waterloo is east of the river.


----------



## java1200 (Nov 10, 2005)

Cotch said:
			
		

> Can I just this straight; are you seriously arguing that St. Thomas' Hospital is NOT south of the river?




That is not what I'm saying; once again, in BIG FUCKING CAPITAL LETTERS SO YOU MIGHT UNDERSTAND:

FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE MAP THAT T&P POSTED, ST THOMAS' HOSPITAL IS EAST OF THE RIVER. YES, IT IS SOUTH OF OTHER PARTS OF THE RIVER, BUT IT IS EAST OF THIS  PARTICULAR POINT.


----------



## T & P (Nov 10, 2005)

kea said:
			
		

> can i interrupt this love-in to ask a question?
> 
> just assuming, for a moment, that we play along with java's charade - java, i assume that you accept that SOME places are south london, right? so where's the dividing line? take the case of st thomas's hospital for example - would you agree that elephant&castle is south london? if so, at what point between e&c and st thomas's does south london stop?


 It's not an exact science. It seldom is.

Otherwise, cities with no rivers dividing them would have no North and South areas would they?


----------



## kea (Nov 10, 2005)

yeah but someone so pedantic as to insist that st thomas's is east of the river not south of the river must surely be pedantic enough to be able to give us a line on the map, eh? unless they've just realised the flaw in their cunning theory, that is ...


----------



## java1200 (Nov 10, 2005)

kea said:
			
		

> yeah but someone so pedantic as to insist that st thomas's is east of the river not south of the river



But that isn't what i said, is it? I am referring to a particular point on a map of London. You can't deny that it is east of the river at the point to which I'm referring. Further along the river St. Thomas' is south of the Thames, but we were talking about a specific point; at the specific point to which we were referring, it is east of the river.


----------



## Cotch (Nov 10, 2005)

java1200 said:
			
		

> That is not what I'm saying; once again, in BIG FUCKING CAPITAL LETTERS SO YOU MIGHT UNDERSTAND:
> 
> FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE MAP THAT T&P POSTED, ST THOMAS' HOSPITAL IS EAST OF THE RIVER. YES, IT IS SOUTH OF OTHER PARTS OF THE RIVER, BUT IT IS EAST OF THIS  PARTICULAR POINT.



That's lovely, but you said this:




			
				java1200 said:
			
		

> It's not south of it at the particular point to which we were referring.



That is bollocks, and you have said so above. Glad you can admit you are talking shite.


----------



## Cotch (Nov 10, 2005)

java1200 said:
			
		

> But that isn't what i said, is it? I am referring to a particular point on a map of London. You can't deny that it is east of the river at the point to which I'm referring. Further along the river St. Thomas' is south of the Thames, but we were talking about a specific point; at the specific point to which we were referring, it is east of the river.



Oh you are clearly a fucking retard. Simple question retard boy, with a yes or no answer:

At the specific point is St Thomas' south of the river?


----------



## kea (Nov 10, 2005)

java1200 said:
			
		

> But that isn't what i said, is it? I am referring to a particular point on a map of London. You can't deny that it is east of the river at the point to which I'm referring. Further along the river St. Thomas' is south of the Thames, but we were talking about a specific point; at the specific point to which we were referring, it is east of the river.



ok well presumably the points on either side of it are east of the river as well? so at what point does a point which you consider to be east of the river touch a point which you consider to be south of the river?
it isn't a difficult question to grasp.


----------



## Cotch (Nov 10, 2005)

kea said:
			
		

> it isn't a difficult question to grasp.



Well for him it clearly is!


----------



## java1200 (Nov 10, 2005)

Cotch said:
			
		

> That is bollocks, and you have said so above. Glad you can admit you are talking shite.



Yes, I said this: It's not south of it at the particular point to which we were referring.

This is the part of the map to which we're referring.

click 


Waterloo and St. Thomas' are east of that part of the river.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 10, 2005)

Perhaps we should refine this: North London is on the north bank of the river and South London is on the south bank of the river.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 10, 2005)

java1200 said:
			
		

> Yes, I said this: It's not south of it at the particular point to which we were referring.
> 
> This is the part of the map to which we're referring.
> 
> ...



Yes, but look north and you can see a river. It is the same river.


----------



## T & P (Nov 10, 2005)

kea said:
			
		

> yeah but someone so pedantic as to insist that st thomas's is east of the river not south of the river must surely be pedantic enough to be able to give us a line on the map, eh? unless they've just realised the flaw in their cunning theory, that is ...


 Not necessarily. The 'east of the river' observation simply points out that the river doesn't divide all of London in a North-South configuration (not to mention that at times is well off centre and closer to the south end of the city than to the north end).

The fact is that we do not need rivers- or lines, or any other physical boundary- to determine what constitutes north, south, east, west and central. Otherwise cities without river wouldn't have North and South areas. There is such thing as Central London for instance, or Central Paris, or Central Berlin, or Central Any City, and in practically all cases there isn't any physical boundary to mark it off. Sure, there are going to be some areas in which is not clear whether they're 'in or out'. But that is true of any area, anywhere. There is such thing as Southern or Northern England, and counties which are neither here nor there.

Had the Thames run in a perfectly straight line through the centre of London you could argue with a bit more reason about classifying anything south of it as South London. But it doesn't, and there are areas north of the river which are clearly not North London (or West for that matter) and areas to the right bank of the river which can hardly be anything other than Central London.


----------



## George & Bill (Nov 29, 2005)

Cotch said:
			
		

> 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.



how long have you been over here?


----------



## George & Bill (Nov 29, 2005)

what about birminghham btw?


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 29, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Perhaps we should refine this: North London is on the north bank of the river and South London is on the south bank of the river.


alle-fecking-lujah!
urban in 'realising how everyone saaf of river calls it' shocker'!


----------



## Juice Terry (Dec 1, 2005)

Maggot said:
			
		

> Eh? Since when has Millwall been North of the river?


Millwall - North London according to some of the nutters on this thread


----------



## PacificOcean (Dec 1, 2005)

Juice Terry said:
			
		

> Millwall - North London according to some of the nutters on this thread



 

To be fair I think people have been confused as Millwall's ground is in Bermondsey and so assume that the area is Millwall too.


----------



## java1200 (Dec 1, 2005)

PacificOcean said:
			
		

> To be fair I think people have been confused as Millwall's ground is in Bermondsey and so assume that the area is Millwall too.



Thgat wouldn't lead them to the conclusion that Millwall is in north London, though. I think the previous poster is referring to the fact that anything north of the river has been deemed to be north London.


----------



## PacificOcean (Dec 1, 2005)

java1200 said:
			
		

> Thgat wouldn't lead them to the conclusion that Millwall is in north London, though. I think the previous poster is referring to the fact that anything north of the river has been deemed to be north London.



Which it is.  Let's not start this one again!


----------



## TotallyGreatGuy (Dec 18, 2013)

Bump


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 18, 2013)

For what?


----------



## TotallyGreatGuy (Dec 18, 2013)

Justice.


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 18, 2013)

Explain please


----------



## TotallyGreatGuy (Dec 18, 2013)

It's a funny thread that never reached a conclusion.


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 18, 2013)

So it's not cos it has been debated elsewhere?


----------



## TotallyGreatGuy (Dec 18, 2013)

I just liked the idea of Putney not being considered South London.


----------



## Winot (Dec 18, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> For what?



I've just 'liked' one of your posts from 2005 - does that help?


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 18, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> It's quite simple - South London is south of the river, and East, West and North London are North of the river.


This remains true


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 18, 2013)

Winot said:


> I've just 'liked' one of your posts from 2005 - does that help?


Thanks for the reminder


----------



## cliffyboy (May 16, 2018)

My first posting on Urban75. Couldn't help joining as the humour appealed, or should be that be '_appalled'_? I was searching for the Chelsea/South London link and this site came up. It's funny, with some very clever witticisms. It's an interesting debate as both sides make sense. Geographically, Chelsea can't be in South London, but in terms of the City itself, and using the River Thames as your guide, it is South London. Anyway, thanks to all for a most entertaining introduction to this site.


----------



## hash tag (May 16, 2018)

I can see Chelsea. It's to the North of me, therefore I'm in the South.


----------



## BCBlues (May 16, 2018)

hash tag said:


> I can see Chelsea. It's to the North of me, therefore I'm in the South.



As a Palace fan you will always have to look upwards ie North to see Chelsea because we are always above you in the league.


----------



## hash tag (May 16, 2018)

I have never and will never look up to Chelsea.


----------



## BCBlues (May 16, 2018)

I bet youve cheered at least once when John Terry has scored a goal


----------



## Pickman's model (May 16, 2018)

BCBlues said:


> I bet youve cheered at least once when John Terry has scored a goal


how many own goals has he scored?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 16, 2018)




----------



## Pickman's model (May 16, 2018)




----------



## Pickman's model (May 16, 2018)




----------



## BCBlues (May 16, 2018)

Sometimes Chelsea are so good we even score for the oppo to help their miserable season along.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 16, 2018)

BCBlues said:


> Sometimes Chelsea are so good we even score for the oppo to help their miserable season along.


keep telling yourself that


----------



## BCBlues (May 16, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> keep telling yourself that



I do but it doesn't always work.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 16, 2018)

never mind eh


----------

