[HN Gopher] The City of London which is not part of London (2016)
___________________________________________________________________
The City of London which is not part of London (2016)
Author : kaisix
Score : 94 points
Date : 2024-06-23 05:56 UTC (17 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.thevintagenews.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.thevintagenews.com)
| simonbarker87 wrote:
| I'm probably being overly pedantic but it's not a secret
| timr wrote:
| It'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 wrote:
| The London congestion charge is a much larger area than the
| City
|
| https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/congestion-
| charge/congestio...
| timr wrote:
| You'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 wrote:
| What are you talking about the London congestion charge is
| analogous to the NYC one, covering the core central business
| district.
| arrowsmith wrote:
| They may be confusing it with London's ULEZ (ultra low
| emissions zone), which was expanded last year with no
| democratic mandate and has been hugely controversial.
| timr wrote:
| No, not even close. The NYC one covered all of Manhattan
| south of 60th, and almost every ingress/egress to the
| island. As I said in my comment, even if you only consider
| people who live in Manhattan (which is a fraction of the
| NYC residents affected by the proposed policy), it would
| have covered about 10% of the entire city -- about 800,000
| people.
| markoman wrote:
| Yes 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 wrote:
| So, it's midtown Manhattan, which is a small portion of the
| area NYC proposed to meter.
| crimsoneer wrote:
| The congestion charge in London has absolutely nothing to do
| with the City.
| notahacker wrote:
| Aside 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 wrote:
| I 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 wrote:
| I've read this exact factoid at least a few hundred times. I'm
| mostly just amazed that it continues to surprise people.
| Ylpertnodi wrote:
| Obligatory xkcd: 10,000.
| jfengel wrote:
| I'm glad people are learning a neat new factoid but it
| really wasn't a secret.
| nix0n wrote:
| Equally obligatory: link to the xkcd[0][1]
|
| [0]https://xkcd.com/1053/ [1]https://m.xkcd.com/1053/
| denton-scratch wrote:
| Yup. 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 wrote:
| But it's such an unexpected power structure in a modern
| democracy some people don't really believe it even when told.
| chrisjj wrote:
| They are right to disbelieve.
| dventimi wrote:
| Its existence may not be a secret but it's activities seem to
| be:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28827292
| foldr wrote:
| The 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 wrote:
| Relevance? 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 wrote:
| The 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 wrote:
| The article title includes "the secret City of London."
| Without clarification, it's left to readers to decide
| what that means. It could mean its government actively
| maintains a cloak of secrecy, it could just mean that
| it's not well known, say, to Americans, or it could mean
| something in between. The latter pole--that it's not well
| known, say, to Americans--has been established in this
| thread. What I'm trying to do is offer evidence to
| support the former pole. If there's corruption within the
| City of London, that supplies a motive for its financial
| institutions or its government (as if there's a
| difference) to shield the activities that occur there
| from scrutiny.
| foldr wrote:
| The UK financial services sector is involved in money
| laundering. That does not have much to do with its
| location in the City of London. The City of London
| Corporation is essentially just a local authority and
| does not have the kind of governing powers that would
| enable it to play a major role in money laundering. For
| example, it does not regulate financial transactions or
| pass laws (except the largely inconsequential local
| 'byelaws' that any UK local authority can pass).
| walthamstow wrote:
| Yes quite correct. The Corporation is a local council, it
| collects the bins and operates one primary school.
|
| There's always this misconception that it's some sort of
| lawless wild west. If it was, I assure you every company
| in the world would be based there!
| dventimi wrote:
| > _The Corporation is a local council, it collects the
| bins and operates one primary school._
|
| Is that _all_ it runs?
|
| > _There 's always this misconception that it's some sort
| of lawless wild west._
|
| I don't view it that way.
|
| > _I assure you every company in the world would be based
| there!_
|
| How many financial companies in the world are based
| there?
| walthamstow wrote:
| > How many financial companies in the world are based
| there?
|
| Many, for sure. Plenty more are headquartered in Canary
| Wharf, which is not in the City but in Tower Hamlets.
| These include Barclays, HSBC and Citigroup.
| dventimi wrote:
| That's one way to put it. Another way to put it is
| "most". The City has the largest number of financial
| firms, the largest share of office space, and the largest
| share of trading volume and assets under management. It's
| home to the Bank of England and the London Stock
| Exchange, and will be home to HSBC when it finishes its
| move there from Canary Wharf.
|
| Those firms have been accused--indirectly--of money
| laundering. If they're engaged in that vice, it's
| plausible to me they would add the additional vice of
| protecting it from scrutiny. I.e. engaging in "secrecy."
| It need not collude with the government to do so, but if
| it did it would hardly be the first time business and
| government colluded under a veil of secrecy.
|
| As for what the actual City of London Corporation runs,
| since you didn't answer the question, I'll answer it for
| you. In addition to collecting bins and operating one
| school, it also runs a police department.
| foldr wrote:
| The firms you mention have certainly colluded with the
| government in Westminster, which is the one that
| regulates financial services. The City of London
| Corporation is merely a local authority (albeit a quirky
| one), and banks don't really need its cooperation in
| order to launder money. (HSBC did a fine job of it from
| Canary Wharf, for example.)
|
| >it also runs a police department.
|
| As do many other regions of the country. There's nothing
| surprising or sinister about this. There isn't any
| connection between this administrative fact and money
| laundering.
| dventimi wrote:
| I'm not saying there's anything necessarily sinister or
| surprising about its police department. I'm just trying
| to be more complete. If we say the City just collects
| bins and runs one school, well that's not really giving
| the full picture, now is it?
|
| Beyond that, consider this:
|
| -The City has one of highest concentrations of global
| finance power in the world, if not _the_ highest.
|
| -That global finance power--global banking and commerce--
| has been accused of illicit activity, largely money
| laundering.
|
| -If they do engage in that illicit activity, they
| probably collude with whatever governments they need to
| to advance their interests. It only makes sense.
|
| -And, they probably would cloak these activities under a
| veil of secrecy. That also only makes sense.
|
| Little if any of this is in dispute. What seems to be in
| dispute is the answer to these related questions:
|
| Money laundering can happen anywhere, in Canary Wharf, in
| the Channel Islands, hell in New York and Delaware. But,
| is there something unique about the square mile? If so,
| what is it? Whatever conditions create a money laundering
| opportunity, are those conditions enhanced by what's
| unique about the City? And if it's not the Corporation,
| then what is it? If there's a high degree of money
| laundering there to go along with its high concentration
| of global finance power, then why is that? Because there
| _hasn 't_ been equivalent such accusations against New
| York and Delaware. The square mile has been called out as
| playing an outsized role in corruption. If that's true--
| supposing for the sake of argument it is--if that's true,
| then why? Is it just coincidence? Global finance and the
| vices it's indulged in had to land somewhere, and the
| City was as good a place as any?
| dventimi wrote:
| Where is the UK financial services sector concentrated?
| lolinder wrote:
| > The article title includes "the secret City of London."
| Without clarification, it's left to readers to decide
| what that means.
|
| Generally speaking the etiquette on HN is to at least
| pretend that you've read the article. I've rarely seen
| someone so audaciously using the fact that they didn't
| read the article as a defense.
| OtherShrezzing wrote:
| I'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 wrote:
| That's defensible.
| BillEllson wrote:
| Secretive? 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 wrote:
| Please. 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 wrote:
| I'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 wrote:
| Well, it's not now!
|
| p.s. the first rule of London is we don't talk about London...
| temporarely wrote:
| The 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 wrote:
| You get a pass; the title was being overly gratuitous.
| klelatti wrote:
| The 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-7c2d02050...
| CamelCaseName wrote:
| https://archive.is/Hgz5j
| dwheeler wrote:
| CGP Grey has a delightful video explaining this:
|
| "The Secret City inside of London Revealed" (2012)
| https://youtu.be/LrObZ_HZZUc
|
| Highly recommended.
| forgotpwagain wrote:
| I 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 wrote:
| CPG Grey's videos re the City are a bit of fun that he slapped
| together in two or three days, not documentaries.
| wil421 wrote:
| "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.
| dcminter wrote:
| I 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).
| Reason077 wrote:
| I 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 wrote:
| During 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 wrote:
| I 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.)
| patrickdavey wrote:
| Also 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-u...
|
| There's a good book called "treasure islands" all about tax
| havens... The city definitely features.
| DrBazza wrote:
| And 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...
| BillEllson wrote:
| City of London Ward Lists consist of c19,000 individuals, who
| have one vote each.
|
| Corporations voting = urban myth
| pmyteh wrote:
| Some 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/bu...
| AndrewOMartin wrote:
| For 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 wrote:
| But besides the buildings, walls and the roads, _" what did the
| Romans ever do for US?"_
| throw156754228 wrote:
| Some beautiful old Roman buildings around near Threadneedle.
| There always seems to be some construction work going on around
| there though.
| max_ wrote:
| "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 wrote:
| Fact 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_...
| TRiG_Ireland wrote:
| The 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 wrote:
| Yes. 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.
| BillEllson wrote:
| Anybody, or anything, can have its own flag in England.
| drfuchs wrote:
| I was hoping it would be Oscar-nominated "Passport to Pimlico"
| (Ealing Studios, 1949).
| cletus wrote:
| I 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-
| her...
|
| [2]:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_England...
|
| [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loans_and_interest_in_Judaism
|
| [4]: https://www.euronews.com/culture/2022/09/27/unbaalievable-
| sh...
| stainforth wrote:
| Is 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?
| cletus wrote:
| Jews were historically associated with practices like
| moneylending largely due to the religious quirks I mentioned.
|
| Go forward a few centuries and you have things like
| Shakespeare's moneylender from the Merchant of Venice,
| Shylock. This was no accident. It reveals both the reality of
| the time and attitudes towards Jews. This was such a powerful
| literary figure that the word "shylock" entered the lexicon.
|
| Anyway here's another history [1]:
|
| > The Jews came principally from Rouen - a great center of
| Jewish life in Northern France. It is well known that William
| brought them over as so called "feudal Jews" to be Royal
| serfs, the king's own chattels, providing him with financial
| services and income ...
|
| > Though their principal function was to be money lenders,
| the London Jews did in reality they did follow a variety of
| other trades and callings
|
| [1]: http://www.jtrails.org.uk/trails/the-city-of-
| london/history
| HL33tibCe7 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| Greater 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 wrote:
| Something 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.
| philipwhiuk wrote:
| > and the pre-1985 council didn't have a mayor.
|
| True but it had a council leader.
|
| > 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.
|
| A failing on your part. About half of it is TFL.
|
| Budget
| https://www.london.gov.uk/media/100391/download?attachment
| th0ma5 wrote:
| The city within a city inside of a country inside of a country
| (London, London, England, UK)
| jschveibinz wrote:
| Interesting 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-betwe...
| yieldcrv wrote:
| Many 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.
| Animats wrote:
| The 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-...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-06-23 23:01 UTC)