Talk:Somers Town, London

UK geography Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Removed unsupported comment claiming that newer Muslim communities have refused to integrate due to local government funding, blah, blah. Removed irrelevant link to David Davis' criticism of Muslim leaders. Centrepull 11:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is a misrepresentation of that which was vandalised, namely evidence of deliberate cultivation by local government, of social tensions and economic under-development for political purpose - a population that is too busy bitching among themselves to focus on their parasites is an easily milked resource -----

Yeah and good on you!!Luckyles 20:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You would say that, it replaced your pidgeon English propaganda ---------

Luckyles 18:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geographical Boundaries of Somers Town

Why has the western boundary of Somers Town moved eastwards from Hampstead Road to Eversholt Street? The area in between is a rather large triangle of land which contains the whole of Euston station, North Gower Street, and Mornington Crescent tube station. Is it in Somers Town or not, and if the modern definition is upheld and it is not, why not? BartBassist (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Much of the conversation below and its emotive content astonishes me. I would never have thought that the no-man's-land between Bloomsbury and Camden would ignite such fervour.

Clean up

Needs a general tidy up, better language, some specifics need looking at. Badgerpatrol 04:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can say that again - however, an attempt to do so was immediately vandalised

Take2. Made a few corrections of fact plus small number of links

Take3 : editing somebody else's stuff is TOO laborious , but made a couple of small contributions

Take4 : put in some more time tidying up , correcting fact and diluting one or two unsupported povs

Whoever has "improved " this page patently does not live in Somers Town. Your assertions that we all live separately according to our ethnic and cultural background is totally wrong. Visit our " sectarian/culturally segregated " schools for a real picture before pronouncing on the area! "Political power base dilution"- translate please?? Luckyles 17:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, that particular edit seems to have gone?

I have tried to edit this item as sensitively as possible, but my reward is vandalism of the contribution and verbal abuse. "Political power base dilution" means what it says in simple English - Somers Town is a ghetto, cultivated as a ghetto as a political power base - and I, apparently unlike you, have children in the disgracefully sectarian schools system. What do you know of the discouragement of English language development, especially among girls, at the state primary sink, because one religious faction (wielding a block vote) thinks it unnecessary, or the bogus religious entrance critera of the two openly sectarian pseudo-religious schools (including the one owned/operated by the religious faction a prominent member of which openly disclosed to me "we got together to stop people getting off boats from filling up our [pseudo-religious] schools")? Answer = either nothing, or you have a political motive for misrepresenting reality. What experience do you have of your children being rejected because non Caucasian - or non muslim, or non catholic, or non this or non that, etcetera, etcetera? When was the last time you looked into a bogus religious school's playground and compared its population with the population in the church the following Sunday? What is the mysterious influence that segregates children culturally and racially, in and out of school? - I see my own children unable to socialise with caucasians in nearby schools and even with their close friends at the same primary school because culturally/racially segregated outside of the school perimeter. The answer is the evil influence of the sociopaths who controlled and populated the town hall for decades. What of the non full-time sector? I have personally heard the manager of 'Hopscotch', at a meeting on the premises of the sink secondary school, defending the openly racist characteristic of the pre-school/out-of-school resource on the ground that "it a condition attached to town hall money" - and heard the manager of "plot-ten" reject children because "we cater for working mothers" (code for a different, more furtive, strain of racist/cultural exclusion). A deputy Director of the LEA has communicated to me "discrimination isn't illegal when it cannot be proven to be intentional" and another LEA officer has referred to and openly admitted awareness of the concentrating in a primary and secondary 'sink' of "non achievers". What is the mysterious influence that is powerful enough to achieves this without legal challenge? If such people operated in the back street second-hand car industry they could be criminalised, but because they inhabit children's services they can't. Tax-financed "showcasing" as you put it of a lame officially promoted street festival is a sick joke that is an insult to vigorous cultures like the one behind the Notting Hill event - if you think I'm overcritical you should hear the scathing comments of local children and visitors - and it wouldn't do you any harm to listen to Trevor Phillips either, on the topic of multicultural society as both an oxymoron and when officially promoted at taxpayers' expense, a pernicious because anticommunitarian misuse of public money. A high profile, less secretive, but nevertheless telling characteristic of the cultivated ghetto, in which children are legally abused political fodder to adult's prejudices, is the building of two monstrosities owned by and within the anti-social shadow cast by, a visa university, on two of the Somers Town school playgrounds.

Oh Dear. And this article is now neutral is it? I?m giving up.

Comment : it is *factual* and I see you have removed the *fact* that what was St Marys primary school playground is now a profitable towering block owned by UCL, that completely overshadows the school

comment> I think you have overlooked the fact that the school is newly built and that the playground is going to be bigger than before. The Victorian building is coming down.

Perhaps I wont give up.

Comment : No dearie, don't. Instead and in place of your characteristic unsupported town hall propaganda, publish some pics taken from the school of the profitable students' accomodation block, owned by a visa 'university' that has cast an anti-social shadow over the children of Somers Town for decades. An accomodation block, completely overshadowing the school, that used to be the school playground. Readers will then be able to see the unscrupulous abuse of ghetto power for themselves.

comment Why do you insist on remaining anonymous.....dearie? I speak as a mother of a child whose best friend happens to be Bengali.I am friends with her mother, and with quite a few people who are not of my ethnic persuasion. It doesn't matter. I am not segregated and neither are they. My daughter goes to a (let me get this right) bogus religious school (Father Paul is going to have a laugh about this).You seem to be fixated with the Town Hall. Poor old Plot Ten have fallen victim to your wrath as well! I edited this article once in good faith. I did not, as you imply, vandalise it. But that's it. Finish. I feel so sorry for someone like you who has such embittered views of the area.

Comment : "A child" who just doesn't happen to attend the same school, by accident of course, not as a result of a policy disclosed to me as "we got together years ago to stop people getting off boats from filling up *our* (pseudo-religious) schools"

Comment: In other words you reject the invitation to let readers judge for themselves, prefering to resort again to unsupported POV and personal abuse of an editor. As for your "Father Paul" and his laughter (about which response I agree - when in a different environment the reaction would be shame - but he's not unigue, the Bishop of Edmonton also refused to intervene to diminish the levels and forms of sectarian discrimination and closet racism that characterise 'education' in Somers Town too, until faced with explaining his conduct to a judge). Another *fact* : my children were rejected by both holy hypocrite schools, as non Caucasians because as the speaker excusing one exclusion (the other lot contemptuously offered nil excuse - that was in the days when they thought they were above the law and the population of pink children wasn't hurriedly diluted by some token non pinks - I remember the first hurriedly acquired tokens were a Nigerian family) said "we don't have enough space for our own children". "Our own children" - as in the case of the equally selective Bishop of Edmonton led fraction of closet racists (the other one where "we got together to stop people getting off boats from filling up our schools" according to one of your 'christian' stalwarts), also run by holy hypocrites, are characterised by criteria other than whether or not they appear in either of the churches on Sundays. Readers can easily - against a background that includes well known widespread pernicious bogus 'religious' schools selection phenomena, of which most well-informed citizens are well aware as a charactersitic of a Britain led by another holy hypocrite, who personally exploited it for his own children after turning his back on struggling Islington sinks overflowing with rejected ("non achievers", I quote the then LEA of LB Camden) from Camden - guess what those criteria are and what are the motives behind them. The fact that the level of discrimination is gradually decreasing is wholly attributable to it being unsafe to be as blatant about it as the pepertators used to be, because of the real risk of having to explain to a judge in public court thanks to a tiny handful of (incomer) residents who believe that children's right to develope fully, free from the prejudices of underdeveloped adults, is enforcable in law. The fact that the level of violence associated with the notorious local sink secondary is diminishing, is also attributable to the same influence and to the factor that children aren't fools - they can spot anti-social hypocrites quicker than you can type a word of unsupported personal POV and they react to laboriously achieved (by threat of legal actions) diminishment (but far from elimination) of the prevailing levels of hypocrisy and closet racism. I note your resort to brandishing the totem of "a Bengali friend". Readers will draw their own conclusions. It has nil bearing on whether or not children (as distinct from adults who are 90% lost causes) are deliberately segregated. Does the "Bengali" child you refer to visit your home, or your child visit the "Bengali" home? Do thechildren share the same out-of-school facilities? Do they share the same publicly financed children's outings/events/premises? I think not, unless it is by uncommon private arrangement typical of some small breakthroughs achieved in spite of pernicious intentionally segregation/apartheid creating/promoting/reinforcing/maintaining public spending by sociopaths. What to you is a "Bengali" problem, is a broader product of cultivated sectarianism and closet racism. For decades, public spending has aggravated 'christian' discrimination by adding additional layers of "Bengali" (as you call it) discrimination as freely disclosed by the manager of "Hopscotch" and others. "Hopscotch" is an excellent example, it was created and is still publicly financed (although "Save The Children" withdrew holding its nose) to aggravate and reinforce the pernicious segregating consequences of the "only working mothers" (in an area in which the one constant characteristic of the "mothers" of children targeted for exclusion, is that they are all full-time parents) mislabeled closet 'christian' discrimination of "Plot 10" et al. In a society not influenced by a policy of ghetto cultivation as a power base, they would all be abolished (as the only effective remedy of cultivated and now deeply embedded discrimination/segregation) and replaced by a non discriminatory melting pot high quality (because most cost effective in terms of societal need for fully developed non alienated people) group socialisation environment available to all children of every colour or creed, able-bodied and disabled, 'achievers' and "non-achievers" (I quote LB Camden)- including non sectarianised children, excluded by the likes of both "Plot 10" *and* "Hopscotch", in order to protect children and society from the evil influence of underdeveloped adults intent on perpetuating spirals of human underdevelopemnt. When there is publicly financed/aided/abetted discrimination in the field of child development, not in a benign/equitable form based on quantified achievement against a background of equality of opportunity, then both sets of children/future_citizens, those discriminated against and those who are the 'beneficiaries', are abused and developmentally mutilated - and society is denied the benefit of a generation of fully developed people.

This is a disgraceful way to respond on a discussion page. IP 82.35.32.190 seems intent on intimidating contributors on this discussion page. Is this behaviour what new and potential contributors to Wikipedia can expect?

Comment: characteristic resort to vilifying the messenger in preference to dealing with unsavoury reality

Grid reference

I'm not really sure how these grid references work but it currently points to a location in Bloomsbury - can this be fixed? Lfh 17:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Why? So that the heavy rentamob or some bored youths can be (characteristically) dispatched to silence the source of criticism by criminal means - the usual stones at the windows or excrement through the letter box perhaps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.73.160 (talk) 10:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Making it an even more diverse area

Gentrification wankers —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.97.139.96 (talk) 01:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Editorializing

New passages feature heavy POV, and rely on blogs and similarly weak sources:

There is a government financed "Somers Town Festival" held every year in July on the site of the Chalton Street market, allegedly "organised by a local 'voluntary' group' S.T.A.R.T (Somerstown Art)", which allegedly "showcases" a State promoted "multicultural society" project. It is also alleged that there is a similarly publicly financed and "group" managed indoor "Winter Festival each year" at an undisclosed venue "with the first half of the event organised for local primary school children, and the second half a music event held later in the day". JNW (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correction : a) the "heavy POV" is the original, restored by the vandal; b) the allegedly "weak sources" replace nil sources.-----------

An industrial area of land at Brill Place - a leftover from the British Library redevelopment and part of the former railways goods yard, was used as temporary site offices for the St. Pancras and Thameslink developments and has more recently been chosen as the site for the UK Centre Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI). Joint promoters of the project, the Medical Research Council, Wellcome Foundation and University College London see the site as a vital high tech biological sciences research centre, that together with institutions in adjacent districts, will make Somers Town the focus of a 21st century world-ranking biotech industry. The project is vociferously opposed by characteristically conservative uninvolved local Labour councillors who feel snubbed, and a small group of residents plus 'rentamob.

This is pure agenda stuff, and my first reversion was undone. An administrator's thoughts will be welcome here. JNW (talk) 04:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correction : You have removed the links, leaving above unsupported material based on first hand knowledge, to support your characteristic misrepresentation. Your restoration, twice, of heavily politically biased and unsupported POV is vandalism.----------------

Making it an even more diverse area

Gentrification wankers —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.97.139.96 (talk) 01:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Agreed that it is a revealing phrase but disagreed that it means what you imply. "More diverse" actually refers to a phenomenon in a very non (socio-economically) "diverse" ghetto area, namely an absurd State promoted oxymoron known as "multicultural society". Why is it oxymoronic? Because of the fact that humans' perceptions of reality are culturally saturated.

Add that to local government financed ignoramuses who for example when vandalising content here, misrepresent a pernicious State policy of financially encouraging minorities not to integrate for a variety of anti-social purposes, as minorities "refusing" to integrate, and you get a foul smelling pot indeed.

Another aspect of the context referred to (that of dwelling sellers being replaced by incomers of a different socio-economic class) was actually a small shift towards a balanced population. It was an unwelcome change, as is the new high-tech development at Brill Place, to an entrenched political establishment whose primary concern at all times is to prevent their grip on a contrived (and maintained for political, anti-social purposes) ghetto power base from slipping away). An unbalanced population makes an unhealthy society but unscrupulous pols are more interested in staying in control of patronage systems, than in society's well-being.

For corroborating evidence look to current vandalising and "showcase"ing (I quote the vandal) of the oxymoron.-----------------

Copyedit

The article needs a thorough restructuring and copyedit. I will endeavour to start on this relatively soon. Try and lay off the politics drama. Brilliantine (talk) 05:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is to document the fact of perpetration of another layer of vandalism, with evident impunity. Who are you to be self-appointed arbiter? How are you qualified? By residence? By research? How will you decide whether the public financing of patently anti-social activities and the absurd concept of an anti-social and oxymoronic (don't take my world for it, take that of the Chairman of the Racial Equality Commission) "multicultural society" is socio-economically benign or malignant? Have you or your children experienced discrimination as non Caucasians by the education and health services available to residents of Somers Town? Do you deny that as economist Dr. Vince Cable MP put it in the HoC, that such 'developmental' funding in London Boroughs like Camden, is "a giant slush fund"? Failing all else, then at least recruit as the vandal, someone able to write English as distinct from pidgeon - I've lost count of the number of times I've had well intended corrections vandalised and pidgeon re-inserted.-----------

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.73.160 (talk) 10:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OR and WP:NPOV. I'm afraid this is an encyclopedia, not a political soapbox. Personal commentary does not belong in the article. The article is not particularly well written as stands, but I will have a go at rewriting it (as mentioned above) when I have time - as a former resident I have some idea of what I'm doing. Brilliantine (talk) 14:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : "Former resident" = someone carrying the smell of "we got together to stop people getting off boats from filling up our [pseudo-religious] schools" syndrome = non resident = (in the absence of any other of the above listed qualifications) unfit to be self-appointed arbiter.

About your valid point that "this is an encyclopedia not a political soapbox": is an encyclopaedia necessarily written in embarrassing pidgeon English? Is it necessarily misrepresentative of reality? Is it necessarily political propaganda - who but a dull-witted town hall propagandist or beneficiary of Dr. Cable's aptly labelled "giant slush fund" would repeatedly vandalise content in order to re-insert the apparently obligatory "showcase" in relation to the absurd oxymoron? If content of "an encyclopedia" is unsupported political woofage, it is disinformational not informational and I suggest you desist from vandalism until you "have the time" to do something more constructive than to vandalise the contributions of others who a couple of times a year have found "the time". As a resident as distinct from "former resident", I resent the toe-curling embarrassment of the current content (which incidentally, includes some of my factual contributions, that I strongly resent being associated with and misused to support crude anti-social propaganda. You remind of the sociopathic Blairs who turned their backs on adjacent Islington schools, health services and festering local misgovernment ----

...............Update 160909 : the extent and form of 'patrolling' carried out by those having a vested interest in preseving the ghetto as a political power base for "Dobbo" et al, is nicely illustrated by vandalism as the removal within minutes (before I had even enough time to insert the links to sources as verification) of the following factual and verifiable text:

/////// Somers Town is still as characterised : a) in September 2008 by the World Health Organisation - "Life expectancy at birth for those in the fashionable north London suburb of Hampstead is on average 11 years longer than for those born in the vicinity of nearby St Pancras station"; b) by a 1999 Camden New Journal report that coined the phrase "two (educational) Camdens" syndrome ///////

A link to a privately owned (by me) aerial view of Somers Town before the major BL and KX developments, was also deleted and my "an inside view link" deliberately hijacked by one of the districts anti-social neighbours, the British Library.

As emeritus editor of both, I was minded to also contribute links to issue 1 of highly pertinent 'SomersTownNews' and issue 37 of 'StPancrasNews', but both have been banned from town hall owned and "slush funded" [Dr. Vince Cable] premises (since at the same time, a temporary ban was imposed on Camden New Journal whose editor suitably repented and has ever since conformed by peddling disinformation to please the local gangsters). That, together with the fact that editorial function of both cannot be intimidated by threat of withdrawal of "slush funding" (Dr. Vince Cable) or advertising (as in the case of the CNJ) means the links would not survive for more than minutes in this heavily patrolled err.... 'encyclopaedia'.

In other words, useful information and independently and reputably corroborated (and verifiable unlike the existing opinionated content) fact is vandalised, and political propaganda written in pidgeon English substituted, by deliberate anti-socials, with impunity. Some 'encyclopaedia'!

I'm afraid your perceptions of what 'former resident' entails are not necessarily correct. I have never been minded to become involved in Camden's political machinations - it would probably do my health no good at all. I am not suggesting that I would be a 'final arbiter' - due to the nature of the project, no-one is. I was merely proposing that I rewrite the article to improve the quality of the English, which you are right to criticise. Note that I have not yet actually removed anything from the article, as can be seen from the history.

If you do make further edits that could be interpreted as unsupported opinion, try and add sources at the same time as the edit. Wikipedia has criteria for reliable sources - WP:RS - and help in how to cite them: Wikipedia:Citing sources.

Most people 'patrolling' this article probably have never been near the place (most users here are from the USA), and are, at least most of the time, removing content that is (or appears to be) unsupported by a reliable source or involves original commentary - I'm sure you will agree that it is not proper for an encyclopedia to offer this type of commentary.

If there currently is unsupported 'woofage' in there, I will be sure to take it out when I attempt to rewrite. The reason your additions are removed more rapidly by other is that a higher level of scrutiny tends to be applied to recent additions - generally, this is not a comment on the quality of the rest of the article.

I note that someone has provided you with a link (on your user talk page here to several useful guidelines for editing Wikipedia. I am confident that reading some of these would help you in contributing to the article while meeting Wikipedia's guidelines and avoiding friction with others. If you have any questions about Wikipedia, don't hesitate to ask me on my user talk page, a link to which can be found in my signature.

Many thanks - Brilliantine (talk) 10:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

K. You display or pretend ability to be other than anti-social, but what of the vociferous opposition of a tiny minority ((including conservative 'Labour' (local government) councillors)), being misrepresented for political purpose, as a majority stance?

In fact, I have now removed the description of the festival entirely for now. Brilliantine (talk) 10:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

k. All reference to "the festival" should not be "removed". If there was greater web space available, it should instead have been allowed the rope it needs to publicly humiliate itself.

To experience non gangster financed reality: try stepping over the southern boundary a few yards and tasting the Bloomsbury Centre / Marchmont Street Saturday experience. Feel, see, smell, and taste, the difference between tax-financed anti-social political correctitude and thrusting / thriving / respectable socio-economic evolution, despite decades of misgovernment.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Somers Town, London. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

another resident?

Harriette Wilson refers to Somers Town quite a lot in her memoirs which span the Regency period including Beau Brummell's fall from grace and the Return from Elba. Same place? 100.15.117.207 (talk) 23:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. About 1803 she lived in Duke's Row (now Duke's Road), then considered part of Somer's Town. It was at that time she met Julia Storer (Johnstone). John beta (talk) 04:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notable residents

In this section, is "Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin (Mary Shelley) (1797–1851), most famous for her novel Frankenstein, ... born at 29 The Polygon" the same person as "Mary Wollstonecraft (1759–1797), writer and philosopher, died at 29 The Polygon"?Haynesta (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No - they are mother (died as a result of childbirth) and daughter. John beta (talk) 12:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]