| chapman Billy 2005-02-28, 5:50 pm |
| Nick wrote:
quote:
> David Richerby wrote:
>
>
>
> Thanks to David Richerby for his contribution.
There is a ambiguity here in that there was a GLC, and before that a
GLCC (Greater London County Council) which overlapped traditional county
boundaries. The GLC was abolished by Mrs T, it's last leader being
Livingstone (nicknamed Leninspart in certain quarters, particularly
during the 1980s, when the Red Flag flew from County Hall), who is the
present elected mayor of London. Perhaps the most notable London leader
was Herbert Morrison (he was also a cabinet minister), who could be
considered the last politician to invest effectively in London's
transport infrastructure. Herbert Morrison enjoyed a reputation as a
ladies man, in marked contrast to his grandson Peter Mandelson ("the
Prince of Darkness"), who is Britain's European Union commissioner.
quote:
>
> When I read John Henderson's column for ChessBase (which placed
> Vera Menchik's death in Kent), I assumed (whether correctly or not)
> that John Henderson was referring to Kent in a contemporary context,
> *not* in a historical 1944 context. Given that John Henderson was
> writing for an international audience and most readers at ChessBase
> should not have been expected to know anything about the historical
> changes in England's internal borders, I believed that it was
> reasonable to assume that John Henderson was referring to Kent
> in a contemporary context. If John Henderson had intended to
> refer to Kent in a historical 1944 context, then he should have
> added such a note of explanation.
Most natives, then or now, would consider Kent (the "Garden of England")
as defined by its traditional boundaries. Thus this would include bits
of London. Chess wise, clubs in Kent, in or out of London, would be
expected to affiliate with Kent County Chess Association if they seek
BCF affiliation, although the situation became more complicated
(affiliation through a local league is now enough) when the system of
County Registrations was replaced by the Game Fee Scheme (in something
like 1994, I can't remember the exact date).
quote:
>
>
> Phil Innes's original statement (above) referred to a place in
> North London being 'just a few miles away from her house', which
> I had been led (by John Henderson) to believe was in Kent.
>
> On some occasions I have said something like "I'm going out to
> walk for just a few miles", and on those occasions I never have
> walked as far as 'about fifteen miles'. I *could* have walked
> 'about fifteen miles', but then I would *not* have described
> it as 'just a few miles'.
Few Londoners north of the river would regard anything south of the
Thames as particularly convenient; not even boroughs such as Charlton or
Greenwich. A further point is that not everything north of the Thames
would generally be described as part of North London; e.g. neither the
City, nor the West End would be considered part of North London, whereas
the London borough of Barnet, for instance, would. To get from Barnet to
Clapham say, on public transport, which one must if one wishes to
socialise after a chess match, is a not very pleasant trip on the
Northern Line.
quote:
>
>
>
> The V-1 had quite a reputation for inaccuracy, often landing nearly
> at random. As long as the distinctive noise (or 'acoustical
> signature')
> of the V-1's pulsejet engine could be heard, one felt safe enough
> because that showed that the V-1 was still airborne. But once that
> noise suddenly stopped, it was time to take cover.
There is an article in today's Torygraph on government fears at the
time, see:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...&_requestid=140
or http://tinyurl.com/5aaj7
These are newly released papers.
quote:
>
>
>
>
> In rec.games.chess.politics, Phil Innes ('Chess One') wrote (sic):
> "Travelling London to the Kent countryside every day would also be
> difficult since there were no private cars or public buses or hardly
> any gasoline, the railyards bombed beyond recognition."
>
> To comment on only one part of Phil Innes's statement (above),
> it seems far from true that by 1944 (when Vera Menchik died)
> that 'the railyards (were still) bombed beyond recognition'.
> The Allies enjoyed air supremacy over the skies of England.
> All that the Luftwaffe bombers could do were some nuisance
> raids at night against 'area targets' (such as entire cities,
> not specific 'railyards').
>
> *If* it had been true (as Phil Innes has claimed) that the British
> 'railyards (were still) bombed beyond recognition', then how could
> the vast build-up of resources to support the Allied landings in
> France on 6 June 1944 (D-Day) have been achieved in time?
>
> --Nick
>
Regards,
Simon.
--
Excise Burns and his dates to email me.
|