24 ms·
The City of London which is not part of London (2016)
- simonbarker87 2y agoI’m probably being overly pedantic but it’s not a secret
- timr 2y agoIt's not well known in America. Recent conversations on congestion surcharges in NYC regularly confused the charges in City of London (miniscule) with London as a whole (huge), and then tried to draw the comparison to the now-canceled charges in NYC, which would have affected more than half of Manhattan, and a large portion of the most significant commercial areas of NYC. People are either being completely disingenuous, or they don't understand that City of London is a relatively insignificant portion of greater London. This fact alone illustrates how absurd the comparison actually is: > As of the 2011 census, the City of London has a population of 8,072 and area of 1.12 square miles. (For context, Manhattan has a population of 1.65 million people, with about 73,000 people per square mile. Even setting aside that lower Manhattan is more densely populated than upper, and that a lot of people commute in from the outer boroughs, the congestion pricing scheme would have affected at least 800k resident people, or about 10% of NYCs total population.)
- pledg 2y agoThe London congestion charge is a much larger area than the City https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/congestion-charge/congestion-charge-zone https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/congestion-charge/congestio...
- timr 2y ago[flagged]
- lores 2y agoIt's a fraction by area, but it's by far the densest and busiest part of the city. Comparisons to half of Manhattan are not unwarranted.
- timr 2y agoOnly if you don't know anything about Manhattan other than "density". The now-canceled project would have affected, at a minimum, about 10% of New York's entire resident population (~800k). A lot of New Yorkers actually live in Manhattan south of 60th. That's part of why it's dense. A more reasonable comparison to the current London congestion area would be midtown -- the small area in the middle of Manhattan with the obvious skyscrapers, as well as Times Square, theaters, throngs of tourists, and the bulk of finance.
- casta 2y agoIt's not canceled. They paused the plan.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- chgs 2y agoIt’s about 8 square miles - in Manhattan that would be about the area below 42nd street
- timr 2y agoYou can't compare land areas directly. London is twice the size of New York. Population density, land uses, etc. are completely different. For example, only about 140k people [1] live in the London area. Easily 800k live in the Manhattan area, and probably more (population density is higher on the lower half of the island, due to things like Central Park). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_congestion_charge#Present_scheme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_congestion_charge#Prese...
- timr 2y agoYou're quibbling. The portion covered by the congestion charges is a tiny, tiny portion of the whole of London, comprising mostly business and entertainment areas. The point I am making is that Americans use the naming confusion to draw the fundamentally misleading comparison.
- CPLX 2y agoWhat are you talking about the London congestion charge is analogous to the NYC one, covering the core central business district.
- timr 2y ago[flagged]
- lores 2y agoResidents would largely not have to pay, if they follow the London model. The London congestion zone covers ~150K residents, but above 1 million commuters, not counting trade and tourists.
- timr 2y agoSensible, but unfortunately, that's not how it was going to work in NYC. Any car entering the zone below 60th would be covered, regardless of residency. Taxis, ride shares, deliveries, etc., were all covered as well. The area in NYC was little more than a new tax on residents, disguised as congestion pricing. I'd personally have little problem with a fee that made carve-outs for the people who actually live here (and I say that as someone who doesn't own a car). Thanks for the numbers on residents in the London area.
- CPLX 2y agoYou’re just wrong. I live in NYC right next to the congestion zone and it would affect me greatly. I also have lived temporarily in London with a car. They’re very much similar plans. You clearly don’t like the NYC one which is fine, but that wasn’t the topic. As for the NYC one it’s a fee for using a car, not a tax on residents. Those are two different things. Also you’re factually wrong, as the east/west side highways were exempted. So you very much could transit the area, or from the Brooklyn Bridge to upstate or the Battery Tunnel to Washington Heights, for example.
- 2y ago
- markoman 2y agoYes the City of London has a population of around 10,000 but employs nearly 1 million by some estimates since the legal and financial capitals exist within it.
- timr 2y agoSo, it's midtown Manhattan, which is a small portion of the area NYC proposed to meter.
- crimsoneer 2y agoThe congestion charge in London has absolutely nothing to do with the City.
- notahacker 2y agoAside from the points others have made that the congestion charge introduced by the mayor of the large urban area of London which covers the whole of central London[1] doesn't really have anything to do with the City of London boundaries or administration, I don't think "it's not well known in America" justifies the use of "secret" The jurisdictions of San Mateo and Santa Clara aren't particularly well known in the UK but I'd still think any journalist referring to them as "secret" was being ludicrously hyperbolic... [1]an area with approximately 17x the population of the City of London, and I suspect the ULEZ emissions charge which now covers all 9 million London residents also gets dragged into the US debate...
- timr 2y agoI never said anything about it being a "secret", nor did I even use the word. You seem to be having an argument with the title of the piece, not with me.
- keiferski 2y agoI’ve read this exact factoid at least a few hundred times. I’m mostly just amazed that it continues to surprise people.
- Ylpertnodi 2y agoObligatory xkcd: 10,000.
- denton-scratch 2y agoYup. I stopped reading when I got to the bit where they explained that the "secret city" was the City of London. That's tabloid crap.
- actionfromafar 2y agoBut it’s such an unexpected power structure in a modern democracy some people don’t really believe it even when told.
- chrisjj 2y agoThey are right to disbelieve.
- dventimi 2y ago[flagged]
- foldr 2y agoThe article you link to is using the 'City of London' to refer to London's financial sector, which is primarily located in the City of London (rather like the use of 'Washington' to refer to the US government). It's not talking about anything shady that the institutions of the City of London itself are doing.
- dventimi 2y agoRelevance? I haven't said whether I'm talking about the City of London's government or its financial institutions (as if there's a difference). None of which has to do with "secrecy" which is arguably the relevant topic. On that subject, whether it's the government or the financial institutions or both, if they're engaged in money laundering, which is more likely: They keep those matters secret, or they don't keep those matters secret?
- foldr 2y agoThe article we're all commenting on is talking about the City of London in the sense of the geographic area administered by the City of London Corporation. The article you linked to is talking about the shenanigans of the UK's financial sector (mostly concentrated in the City of London). The UK financial sector is regulated by the FCA. Corporations headquartered in the City of London are subject to English law just like corporations headquartered in any other part of the country. So the role that the City of London Corporation plays in money laundering is relatively minor and indirect. Of course, there may well be corruption that is worth investigating and exposing. Unfortunately, the idea of the City of London as some kind of extraterritorial legal island within the UK is catnip to conspiracy theorists of various stripes. It is complete nonsense. However, that is not to say that the City of London Corporation is not in need of reform.
- dventimi 2y ago
- OtherShrezzing 2y agoI'd go with something more like "secretive" than explicitly "secret". It's a weird & immensely powerful place in the UK, with some abstruse governing structures, hidden entirely in plain sight.
- dventimi 2y agoThat's defensible.
- BillEllson 2y agoSecretive? As in run by Committees that meet in public with agendas and minutes published on the City's website in accordance with the Local Government Act 1972.
- xhkkffbf 2y agoPlease. I've read Dan Brown's novels and I know that those are just phony and for confuse the proles. But just how the Priory of Sion is involved is still not clear to me.
- epolanski 2y agoI'm gonna add that it is not super super well explained why did it stay that way either which was the curious part for me.
- qingcharles 2y agoWell, it's not now! p.s. the first rule of London is we don't talk about London...
- temporarely 2y agoThe secret isn't that the city of london has existed for centuries. Articles like this are designed to elicit your response. The secret is to what extent the social-political order in the West determined by the Finance and the extent to which they exercise power over nominally sovereign entities.
- dang 2y agoYou get a pass; the title was being overly gratuitous.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- klelatti 2y agoThe FT did a recent - and very good - expose with more on how the city works in “Undemocratic, anachronistic, fantastic. How the City of London survives” [1] Paywalled but accessible via Google. [1] https://www.ft.com/content/2b96763f-5cb2-475b-b20c-7c2d0205074a https://www.ft.com/content/2b96763f-5cb2-475b-b20c-7c2d02050...
- CamelCaseName 2y agohttps://archive.is/Hgz5j https://archive.is/Hgz5j
- dwheeler 2y agoCGP Grey has a delightful video explaining this: "The Secret City inside of London Revealed" (2012) https://youtu.be/LrObZ_HZZUc https://youtu.be/LrObZ_HZZUc Highly recommended.
- forgotpwagain 2y agoI am pretty sure that the CGP Grey video was the core inspiration for this article. Nearly every image in the article was featured in the YouTube video, which predates the article by ~4 years.
- BillEllson 2y agoCPG Grey's videos re the City are a bit of fun that he slapped together in two or three days, not documentaries.
- wil421 2y ago“Documentaries” on YouTube and not the best. Most of the time the images and background isn’t even the specific topic of discussion. For example, showing the wrong plane or car when the video is specifically about a certain fighter jet or war. It made me realize the larger studios and productions have access to lots of accurate “fluff” like historical reels. They even have budgets to take real crews to locations. Makes me rethink the amount of time I spend on YouTube.
- dwheeler 2y agoI consider "posted on YouTube" the same as "posted on the Internet". Youtube is basically a comm channel, they don't vet for accuracy nor do they claim to. Look instead at the channel. Some channels make serious efforts to cite their sources and justify their claims; others do not. It's hard, but where you can, try to prefer the first.
- dcminter 2y agoI used to live in the City of London at the top end of Chancery Lane. I could therefore be in a different city (City of Westminster) by crossing the street to the west and leave the city entirely by crossing to the north (London Borough of Camden).
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Reason077 2y agoI used to live pretty close to the eastern end of the City in Aldgate/Whitechapel. It was pretty cool to go running and cycling around the City during the pandemic lockdowns, with almost no people or cars around. Same with central London: I remember cycling though a completely deserted Leicester Square one day and hearing nothing but birds chirping in the trees!
- chgs 2y agoDuring lockdown most hotels were closed, I ended up staying near Blackfriars and riding my Brompton to the west end. Very peaceful without so many taxis and vans and even it seemed fewer buses. But then the city is hardly bustling on a Sunday either.
- jfengel 2y agoI walked through the City as a tourist one Sunday, and didn't realize I couldn't get any kind of lunch at all until I was past it. (We were recreating Elizabeth I's procession from the Tower to Westminster, which passes through what is now The City.)
- petre 2y agoI think we ate the dreadful TESCO sandwiches in the City, near the hall when we visited. Almost no cars.
- dcminter 2y ago
- patrickdavey 2y agoAlso some pretty interesting tax and voting rules there ... Corporations get a vote, pretty much meaning they run the place. https://www.thecollector.com/what-makes-the-city-of-london-unique/ https://www.thecollector.com/what-makes-the-city-of-london-u... There's a good book called "treasure islands" all about tax havens... The city definitely features.
- DrBazza 2y agoAnd it has the fewest residents of any London borough by a couple of orders of magnitude. So it probably makes sense that businesses have a bit more say. https://www.statista.com/statistics/381055/london-population-by-borough/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/381055/london-population...
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- stefantalpalaru 2y ago[dead]
- BillEllson 2y agoCity of London Ward Lists consist of c19,000 individuals, who have one vote each. Corporations voting = urban myth
- pmyteh 2y agoSome of those individuals are not residents but expressly included as nominees of their businesses, a form of franchise that exists nowhere else in the UK. It's true that the vote is exercised by the company's nominee, not the company itself, but that's only because the company itself can't show up at the polling station. Business voters are expressly included to represent their organisations[0], and do. [0]: https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/about-us/voting-elections/business-vote-registration https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/about-us/voting-elections/bu...
- AndrewOMartin 2y agoFor me, the wildest fact about the City of London (the small, walled part), is that when the Romans left, some buildings were smashed up, but the roads and walls remained, and then the whole area was abandoned... for 470 years.
- Rinzler89 2y agoBut besides the buildings, walls and the roads, "what did the Romans ever do for US?"
- throw156754228 2y agoSome beautiful old Roman buildings around near Threadneedle. There always seems to be some construction work going on around there though.
- epanchin 2y agoUnfortunately modern buildings in the city are designed for a 30 year lifespan, so there is always one being demolished and replaced.
- max_ 2y ago"In fact, the City of London is so independent that it has its own flag, crest, police force, ceremonial armed forces, and a mayor who has a special title, the Right Honorable, the Lord Mayor of London. Oddly enough, if the monarch wants to enter the City of London, she first must ask the Lord Mayor for permission" Are there some books that comprehensively cover several aspects around the City of London? The City of London appeared quite often in Lee Kwan Yu's memoirs
- megamalloc 2y agoFact checking : the monarch does not have to ask permission to enter the City. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=City_of_London_Corporation&action=edit§ion=16 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=City_of_London_...
- martinflack 2y agoThat makes much of the sword part of the ceremony, but surely it's the "red cord raised by City police" that signifies some self-authority -- what other part of the country may purposefully and physically stop the monarch and receive no investigation or punishment?
- TRiG_Ireland 2y agoThe City of London certainly has its own coat of arms. Phrasing that as "its own crest" is a bit weird. (The crest is only part, and by no means the most important part, of a heraldic achievement. The escutcheon is the important bit.) Arms: Argent a cross gules, in the first quarter a sword in pale point upwards of the last. Crest: On a wreath argent and gules a dragon's sinister wing argent charged on the underside with a cross throughout gules. Supporters: On either side a dragon argent charged on the undersides of the wings with a cross throughout gules.
- pmyteh 2y agoYes. And local authorities in the UK routinely have grants of arms and banners/flags of them (albeit most of them are newer and less classy than the City's). Ditto police forces: although most smaller authorities' police have merged into larger county or larger forces, there's nothing odd in principle about a municipal police force. The City's is strange, in that it's entirely enclaved within the Met, but there are plenty of oddities out there (the Mersey Tunnels Police, say). There are several ancient cities with 'Lord' mayors, including York.
- drfuchs 2y agoI was hoping it would be Oscar-nominated “Passport to Pimlico” (Ealing Studios, 1949).
- cletus 2y agoI find the City of London (formerly the Corporation for London) to be fascinating for many reasons. For one, the exact origins are unknown. the earliest record we have is from 1067 CE with the William Charter [1]. William granted the City rights in exchange for not attacking and the City recognizing him as King, which this article sort of mentions. But the interesting part is that William was simply recognizing the rights of something that already existed. For how long? Nobody knows. It's likely somewhere in the 7th or 8th century when Anglo-Saxons resettled the previously abandoned Roman walled city of Londinium after their departure in 410 CE. It's also fascinating because it's managed to survive for nearly 1000 yaers since then, largely recognizable from its earlier form although there have been various changes and reforms. There have been efforts to disband it too but obviously they failed. It also survived uncertain times like the Vikings would cojme along every now and again and burn down London Bridge. London's development as a financial center goes back to 1066 too and a key part was likely due, at least in part, to the arrival of Jews during William's reign [2]. Why was this important? Well, Jews were prohibited from charging interest to other Jews. Muslims and Christians had similar constraints. But an oddity of Judaism was that Jews could charge interest to non-Jews [3]. This later likely contributed to conspiracy theories about Jews (eg blood libel) and antisemitism. So ancient civil institutions like the Court of Aldermen still exist and certain rights given to the Freemen of the City of London still exist, like the ancient right to bring sheep in to the City over the bridge [4]. [1]: https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/things-to-do/history-and-heritage/london-metropolitan-archives/collections/william-i-charter-to-the-city-of-london https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/things-to-do/history-and-her... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_England_(1066%E2%80%931290) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_England... [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loans_and_interest_in_Judaism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loans_and_interest_in_Judaism [4]: https://www.euronews.com/culture/2022/09/27/unbaalievable-sheep-herded-across-london-bridge-into-the-city https://www.euronews.com/culture/2022/09/27/unbaalievable-sh...
- stainforth 2y agoIs there a direct relation or something specific you were going to draw in mentioning the history of the Jews in England and the history and particularities of the City of London? That the Jews performed the interest loans on behalf of and/or within the City of London possibly or something like that?
- HL33tibCe7 2y ago> The secret City of London which is not part of London The City is part of London under any normal person's interpretation of that word. Being as charitable as possible, it is true that the ceremonial county of Greater London does not contain the City. But the Greater London administrative area does. It's also not "secret". Many people aren't aware of it, but that's through ignorance on their part rather than secrecy on the part of the City. The City plasters its logo all over the place: on all street signs in the City, on police uniforms, on statues, etc. Even the bollards in the City bear the colors of the City's flag. It's impossible not to notice that the City is different from the rest of London. So that's two mistakes in the headline alone. > The mayor of Greater London has nothing to do with the original City of London, which still has separate governing bodies and a mayor. This is wrong. The Mayor of London has authority over the City of London, through the Greater London Authority (although some power is delegated to the Corporation, in the same way it is to borough councils). There is indeed also a mayor of the City (confusingly called the Lord Mayor of London), but that mayorship is largely ceremonial in nature. > Oddly enough, if the monarch wants to enter the City of London, she first must ask the Lord Mayor for permission. This is just an urban myth, no such permission is required. In fact, the sovereign has precedence over the Lord Mayor (in the context of formal events and such like).
- BillEllson 2y agoGreater London is made up of 32 London Boroughs and the City of London that provide the vast majority of municipal services. Each has a mayor or Lord Mayor. The powers and responsibilities of London Boroughs, and the local authority responsibilities of the City of London Corporation are set out in statute law, not delegated by the Mayor of London. The Mayor of London is responsible for public transport, Fire and Rescue Services, major highways, some major town planning issues across the 32 London Boroughs and the City of London, and policing across the 32 London Boroughs. The Mayor of London has no general authority over any of the 33.
- arrowsmith 2y agoSomething else that a lot of younger people don't realize is the position "Mayor of London" is only 24 years old. London had no city-wide government between 1985 and 2000, and the pre-1985 council didn't have a mayor. Personally I'd enthusiastically vote for a return to the pre-2000 system as it's not at all clear to me what these people do for us or what we gain from giving them all this money.
- th0ma5 2y agoThe city within a city inside of a country inside of a country (London, London, England, UK)
- jschveibinz 2y agoInteresting anecdote: the city of Baltimore, MD, USA is administratively distinct from the County of Baltimore, MD. The area is collectively referred to as Baltimore, but the county has no jurisdiction within the city. [1] https://www.greektownbaltimore.org/what-the-difference-between-baltimore-city-and-baltimore-county https://www.greektownbaltimore.org/what-the-difference-betwe...
- yieldcrv 2y agoMany states have a similar code, all of Maryland might. There are lots of pockets of sovereignty in the US that are misunderstood. Basically the default behavior is that the state is a bigger government than the county and overrides everything, county bigger than city, city bigger than something smaller. But non-default behavior is codified to make it the reverse. Either its directly codified in state law or state constitution, or there is a symbioses for the state to maintain collective support and order. Rules for rulers applies here.
- jasomill 2y agoYes, and the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, home of the Indianapolis 500, is located in Speedway, Indiana, which has its own local government and police force, in spite of the fact that it is both surrounded by Indianapolis and entirely contained within Marion County, whose government, aside from a few exceptions like Speedway, is entirely consolidated with the government of the city of Indianapolis[1]. Local government can be complicated. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unigov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unigov
- evanb 2y agoUnusually, the county of New York (coextensive with Manhattan) is only 1 of 5 counties inside the city of New York (which of course inside the state of New York).
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Animats 2y agoThe City of London is sort of a lobbying organization for the UK financial community. Or at least it thinks it is.[1] Its police force is not ceremonial - there's a sizable Economic Crime Directorate, handling fraud cases. They claim a 75% clearing rate. [1] https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/about-us/plans-policies/our-corporate-plan/foreword-policy-chairman https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/about-us/plans-policies/our-...
- throttlebody 2y agoCity of London is a separate legal entity to England but still under the king. Hence all the banking industry is located there, to add another step in the money train to tax heavens.
- pjc50 2y agoThis isn't meaningfully true: it's still subject to UK tax law and the law of England&Wales in general. The Channel Islands and Man do fit that description and are not subject to English tax law.
- dukeyukey 2y ago> City of London is a separate legal entity to England but still under the king Not true. You're probably thinking of something like the Isle of Mann, or the Channel Islands, or arguably all of Canada or Australia. The City of London is part of England.
- leashless 2y agoA person I know reasonably well is currently the Lord Mayor of London. I suspect I could get him to do an AMA here if people would like to hear more about the City and its fascinating ways. Seriously, we could actually do this!
- randomcarbloke 2y agoMichael is a terrifically interesting fellow even if you ignore his role as Lord Mayor.
- leashless 2y agoAbsolutely! He’s a Star!