Talk:Grangetown, North Yorkshire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Nonsense removed

Right, I hacked away to remove nonsense. I shall explain what I removed and why it was nonsense.

"however it is more closely related to Middlesbrough than Redcar and Cleveland."

here we had, in the first sentence, already pleading that it is in Middlesbrough. The phrasing here does not make sense seeing as Grangetown is in Redcar and Cleveland : "the rest of Redcar and Cleveland" would perhaps be better.

"It is historically part of the parish and urban district of Eston"

the urban district and parish of Eston were abolished in 1968, with the formation of the county borough of Teesside. I have altered this to say "was".

"and was under the 'Rural Sanitary District of the County Borough of Middlesbrough' for parliamentary reasons."

this does not make any sense at all. firstly, Rural Sanitary Districts existed from 1875 to 1894. A rural sanitary district was a type of local government area formed in 1875. the Middlesbrough Rural Sanitary District covered the parishes of the Middlesbrough Poor Law Union which did not form part of an Urban Sanitary District. Therefore, for a thing to be in the Middlebrough Rural Sanitary District meant that it was not in the town of Middlesbrough itself. using the fact that it was in the Middlesbrough RSD as support for the claim that it is in Middlesbrough is just bizarre. So was Ingleby Barwick!!! That's not in Middlesbrough, is it?

secondly, it had no formal relationship to the county borough of Middlesbrough at all. In fact, Eston had been removed from Middlesbrough Rural Sanitary District in 1884, which was five years before county boroughs were established. this sentence in addition to not actually meaning anything, as the rural sanitary districts had no formal relationship to boroughs; is also anachronistic.

"for Parliamentary reasons"

what? again, nonsense. It was made into the Middlesbrough RSD for a brief period by an Act of Parliament yes. however, saying "for Parliamentary reasons" would usually mean it was made part of some constituency.

"This fact has been recently discarded in favour of its own belonging as it once rejected a proposal to amalgamate with the Town proper."

this isn't even grammatical "in favour of its own belonging"???. in any case, citation? what fact has "recently been discarded"?

"As well as being part of the parliamentary borough, it also still holds a Middlesbrough postal address and area code."

Middlesbrough East (1918-1974) was entirely within the county borough of Middlesbrough as it existed until 1968. It did not include Eston. Presently, it is in the Redcar (UK Parliament constituency) constituency. So what "being part of the parliamentary borough" means is "being part of the parliamentary borough from 1867 to 1918", right? irrelevance.

"it also still holds a Middlesbrough postal address and area code."

everywhere in the united kingdom has a post town. no, really, everywhere. that doesn't mean it's part of that town. as an example, Stokesley also formally has a Middlesbrough address (although obviously a lot of residents drop it). this doesn't mean it is part of Middlesbrough. and you know what Stokesley's area code is? 01642! does this mean Stokesley is part of Middlesbrough? no, of course not. so why is it supposed to be evidence that Grangetown is or should be in Middlesbrough?

"Today Grangetown is part of the Eston urban district"

the eston urban district has not existed for 38 years, as noted above. what is this supposed to mean?

"although still considered part of the Town of Middlesbrough due to no physical boundaries and the urban areas merging together. "

this falsely assumes there is some kind of formal definition of town involved here, as implied by the capital 'T'.

This is really quite a specialist subject, and I would be happy to recommend good books on the it if this is troublesome. I am sorry to have just noticed this, especially after I warned the user in question not to add such nonsense to Middlesbrough articles back in February. Sources for any of this? It represents such a profound misunderstanding of the structure of local government in the 19th and early 20th centuries, that I am afraid I am not really able to break this any more gently. Morwen - Talk 09:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)