Talk:South London

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Removed "There is a distinct accent, characterised by a different way of pronouncing the English th consonant. South Londoners tend to pronounce this as ff. There is probably an historic reason for this." Most of the South isn't associated with that accent and besides its not a good description, but I see what you're getting at: 'sauff london'. Put back in if you can qualify. Jihg 21:18, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Yes - this is obviously contentious. I mentioned this as it is a personal observation (I moved to South London 6 years ago.) I actually have found that it is the case. I think you may have assumed I meant that the "th" consonant is pronounced as "ff" by "lower class" people, or "working class" people. In fact this is not what I meant - I have noticed that "middle class" people who originate in South London also use this sound: it is not a strongly social-class related thing (as your use of the illustrative "sauff" (or even "sarf") for "south" seems to somewhat suggest!), at least in my experience. It is a subtle accent characteristic. I agree this is a subjective observation, but I thought it would be interesting to mention it. Many accent characteristics are very subtle and for that reason difficult to describe and classify. Duncan Smith 09:58, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've heard "th" as "v" in words like "brother" so they sound like "bruva".Cameron Nedland 23:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Where is South London?[edit]

Where is "South" London?. I know South East and South West London, but I've never been to "South" London - what's it's postcode? Cheers, Lion King 19:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Lion King, are you thinking that the South London article should be split into South West London and South East London? Or are you thinking (like me) that South London as an area really does not include places like Kingston? My gut feeling (as a Sarf Londoner) is that South London really only means the north-west of Bromley, the north of Croydon, Lambeth, Lewisham, Southwark and Wandsworth. The rest are really just Surrey and Kent. --A bit iffy 20:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
My gut feeling as someone from Seuth West Larndon is to agree with you :-) 03:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm thinking that by using a term such as south London, is causing people to think that there are no Cockneys in south east London and that Cockneys only come from east London, see what I mean? Lion King 21:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
South London is officialy all of the Greater parts of London south of the river, i usually refer to south london as, Croydon, Southwark, Lambeth, Sutton and the West of Bromley. I used to live in SE London SE23 and still live in the SE postcode but in North Croydon. The places in south london don't have a distinct postcode but borough codes like CR and BR or the SE and SW's. Pafcool2 16:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
How can South London be 'officially' anywhere when it has no official status? 22:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I can't reference anything for this, but I grew up in Teddington, and I never heard anyone suggest that it is in South London as this article suggests, because it is in the pre 1965 Middlesex territory. I've always understood South London to consist entirely of the London County Council territory south of the Thames ie, the post 1965 boroughs of Wandsworth, Lambeth, Southwark, Lewisham and Greenwich, with a question mark over the latter two. Even if the old LCC boundary is no longer considered important, people do talk about South West London (Richmond, Kingston and Hounslow) as being an area of its own, distinct from South London. 03:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
So where does Croydon fit in? (And don't say "Surrey"...) I'm not sure how significant it is but the South London Lines run only in the middle bit and don't run into Kingston or Orpington. Of course the North London Line runs from Richmond (south of the river) to Stratford (where hardly anyone thinks they're in North London) and used to run further to North Woolwich (now is that an exclave of South London?!). Timrollpickering 11:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
My answer would indeed be "Surrey" :-) again, because that's where Croydon was located pre-1965. Of course my point about Kingston/Richmond/Hounslow doesn't apply to Croydon. There's no clear answer to any of this. By that definition, SW London could only include Putney & Roehampton; but that's not the designation people commonly use in my experience. People may commonly consider Croydon to be in South London, they overwhelmingly don't consider Richmond, Hounslow and Kingston to be South London. (talk) 02:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

What about Bexley? and what happened to the GOOD SE London article? and who now days thinks that Greenwich (including flood barrier and millenium dome) are in Kent (that is exactly the same as saying everywhere else including southwark is kent and Surrey) FM (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


there are no 'south' london postcodes, just southwest(sw) and southeast(se) but they cover the whole of south london if you follow. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

The article should probably note that a number of SW postcodes are on the north side of the river. Do people consider that area as part of South London? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Crime Rates[edit]

A recent addition to the opening paragraph adds one generalisation to an existing one, where South London being regarded to contain more parks and open spaces has been followed by an opinion that the high-crime rate is more characteristic. The wording "but is perhaps better known for" effectively challenges the relevance of the initial statement about the abundance of open public spaces as the key characteristic. Both of these statements are made without citing examples or sources. In my own opinion (& without offering statistics!) mentioning the crime rate in comparison with that of North London is misleading and irrelevant, because with Bromley, Kingston, Merton, Richmond and Sutton included (and even considering Croydon, Bexley, Greenwich and Wandsworth too) the figures for crimes committed across South London wouldn't be higher than the rest of London at all. WarrenStreet 03:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm still uneasy with the validity of the vague statement about South London being "perhaps better known for its high-crime rates" than the Northern half, so have now cut the sentence back to its original extent (in the absence of any disagreement here). WarrenStreet 19:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


I'm concerned this section is original research. For example "many people and institutions associate with the South London identity" - this is not the same as something having "South London" in the name. MRSC (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

File:South London Map 1800.jpg[edit]

The problem with this map is that the places identified in the caption would not have been considered part of London in 1800. The built up area does not go further south than a riverside section comprising Lambeth-Southwark-Bermondsey-Rotherhithe. MRSC (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

south London[edit]

Continuing on from 'Where is South London", and from the BBC (no less) "south London called - place names are proper nouns; 'south' here is an adjective, and is not capitalised. If it was a noun, 'the South', it would be capitalised. We see this when we talk about things like 'the West' (Europe, America...) and 'the East' (Asia)." -- from a south Londoner