Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The City of London which is not part of London (2016)

thevintagenews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 126 posts

Re: The City of London which is not part of London (2016)

#51

Post by cletus »

stainforth wrote: post #48
cletus wrote: post #41

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 r…

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?

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

Re: The City of London which is not part of London (2016)

#52

Post by foldr »

dventimi wrote: post #49
foldr wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 th…

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.

Re: The City of London which is not part of London (2016)

#53

Post by TRiG_Ireland »

max_ wrote: post #38

"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…

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.

Re: The City of London which is not part of London (2016)

#54

Post by dventimi »

foldr wrote: post #52
dventimi wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

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 l…

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.

Re: The City of London which is not part of London (2016)

#55

Post by dventimi »

OtherShrezzing wrote: post #35
simonbarker87 wrote: post #3

I’m probably being overly pedantic but it’s not a secret

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.

That's defensible.

Re: The City of London which is not part of London (2016)

#56

Post by foldr »

dventimi wrote: post #54
foldr wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 l…

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 i…

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).

Re: The City of London which is not part of London (2016)

#57

Post by nix0n »

Ylpertnodi wrote: post #30
keiferski wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve read this exact factoid at least a few hundred times. I’m mostly just amazed that it continues to surprise people.

Obligatory xkcd: 10,000.

Equally obligatory: link to the xkcd[0][1]

[0]https://xkcd.com/1053/ [1]https://m.xkcd.com/1053/

Re: The City of London which is not part of London (2016)

#59

Post by [deleted] »

timr wrote: post #15
lores wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It'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.

Only 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 th…

[deleted]

Re: The City of London which is not part of London (2016)

#60

Post by Rinzler89 »

AndrewOMartin wrote: post #27

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.

But besides the buildings, walls and the roads, "what did the Romans ever do for US?"
Post reply on HN