HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk
Newsgroups: uk.politics,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Simple message
Date: 10 Apr 92 14:14:15 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub) writes:
> In article <1992Apr8.181241.7526@maths.nott.ac.uk> anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A
> >	Computers, restaurant meals, payments to travel agents aren't
> >VAT rated?  I'm unfamiliar with the details of the "tax" on wine and
> >on cars, but I'm certain that there are such costs, whether of not
> >they are called VAT.
> 
> He has *thirty* times as many computers? *Thirty* times as many cars?

No, he has computers and cars which are thirty times as expensive.

Hence pays thirty times as much VAT.


mathew

-- 
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for them.
From: matthew@ntl02.decnet.nokia.fi (Matthew Faupel)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: The Green Party
Date: 16 Apr 92 16:00:00 GMT
Organization: Nokia Telecommunications, Cambridge, UK

>>>>> On 13 Apr 92 18:11:56 GMT, proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) said:

> In article <1992Apr13.130210.24037@cs.brown.edu> Simon Bandler writes:
>>I was just wondering, from these fields afar remote, as to what what to those
>>Greens in this most recent election of April 9. Do they now command such little
>>support as to not justify even a mention on the net ? Under 1% ?
>>
>>I dont think they are about to start a new revolution, but surely their message
>>should still be considered seriously.

> In the handful of returns that I saw on TV, the Greens were consistently
> getting around 500 votes. This seems to indicate that they are getting
> slightly more than 1% of the vote, based on my very small sample and some
> wild estimates (about 40,000 votes cast in the average constituency?).

According to my figures (which I think are broadly correct) the Greens got
156,006 votes out of a national total of 34,905,807 which is around 0.45% of
the vote.  They stood in less than half of all the constituencies though, so
they were probably getting about 1% of the vote in each seat they contested.

Whether their message should be considered seriously or not is a moot point.
The tradition of British government is that the party that wins the election
is considered to have a "mandate from the people" for the policies on which
they stood and thus the policies which other parties proposed are irrelevant
whether it was 0.4%, 4% or 40% of the populace that voted for them.


Matthew
--
---* Amnesiac the Wizard *------------------* matthew@uk.tele.nokia.fi *---
 Opinions expressed here are not those of my company.    | NB. ntl02 is EN
 They're not even my own; I plagiarised the lot of them! | TEE EL ZERO TWO
---* matthew@ntl02.decnet.nokia.fi *------------------* Matthew Faupel *---
From: D.M.Johnson@newcastle.ac.uk (Dave Johnson)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Gerry Adams out, Good news for NI...
Date: 13 Apr 92 14:41:48 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

Could that fact that Gerry Adams was not elected by the people of west belfast
indicate to the supporters of the actions of the PIRA, that this actions are
not wanten and a peaceful solution should be used.

 The response of the PIRA to the election - forgot the ballot box we're back
with the boms, 2 100 pound bombs. At least in WWII the citizens had a decent
warning, even from the V1 and V2 rockets. To give the wrong location and blame
the police for the deaths of children is the cowards way. They planted the
bomb, they should take responsabilty for the results.

I hope that now the political parties of N.I. can now work out their difference
and start working together. The people of N.I. appear to be on the brink of a
new dawn, I hope that they get grasp it with open arms and that it is not shot
down in flames by a masked gunman.

Dave Johnson


D.M.Johnson@newcastle.ac.uk
From: wjmc@unix.brighton.ac.uk (-*_Spikey_Tribble_*-)
Newsgroups: uk.politics,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Simple message
Date: 6 Apr 92 16:04:47 GMT
Organization: Brighton Polytechnic, UK


 It's obviously too late to affect the result now but did anyone read the
Observer this weekend ? They published a collection of responses to the
questions "Who would you support and why ?" -- the most sensible reply, in
that it simply answered both questions without slinging mud, was that from
Stephen Hawking [ Lucasian Prof. of Mathematics, Camb. ]. For those who may
have missed it :-

> The Conservative governments of the last 13 years have
>
>  1) Made a massive transfer of resources from the poorer sections of
>    society to the better-off by raising VAT and lowering income tax,
>    restricting social security and housing benefits, and by imposing
>    the poll tax.
>
>  2) Seriously weakened local democratic control and greatly increased
>    the power of central government by measures such as abolition of the
>    GLC and the metropolitan counties, removal of business rates from
>    local control and collection, rate and poll tax capping, encouraging
>    schools to opt out and the imposition of a national curriculam. There
>    would have been howls of Big Brother if Labour had done that.
>
>  3) Badly underfunded education and science. The Conservatives have
>    behaved with arrogance and disregard for public opinion on matters
>    like the poll tax and reform of the NHS, confident that they would
>    be re-elected whatever they did. If they were to get back this
>    election, they would feel they were indeed invincible. It is time
>    for a change, and Labour is the only serious alternative, at least
>    until the voting system is changed.

 Hawking has one of the greatest minds in today's world -- his words
should at least be given consideration.

.
-- 
###########################################################################
#  Bill Crawford  aka  *Cuddly_Cactus*     |     wjmc@uk.ac.bton.unix     #
#  BSc (Hons) Computer Science Year One    |     wjmc@uk.ac.bton.vms      #
#  Any views I express are not necessarily those of Brighton Polytechnic  #
###########################################################################
From: sandee@ds9.scri.fsu.edu (Daan Sandee)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Why should Libya hand over the PanAm bombers?
Date: 7 Apr 92 13:11:35 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <STEINLY.92Apr6161722@topaz.ucsc.edu>, steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
= In article <NICKH.92Apr3121309@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU> nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines) writes:
= 
=    In article <1992Apr3.162536.6929@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> bobv@spike.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Bob von Buelow) writes:
=    As someone else pointed out, acts committed outside the US _cannot_ be
=    properly tried in a US criminal court.
= 
= As yet another person pointed out, the US does claim jurisdiction
= over crimes committed against US citizens abroad! I believe a number
= of countries claim limited jurisdiction over people accused of
= committing crimes outside the nominal jurisdiction of the country,
= in particular was crimes.

(War crimes presumably - notably Israel, when trying WW II war criminals).

=    jurisdiction, the extradition.  There is no extradition treaty with
=    Libya, so you _can't_ just "demand" extradition---you have to make a
=    special case.
= 
= This puzzled me. I believe yet another person noted that extradition
= was claimed under the Treaty of Montreal of which Libya is a
= signatory, hijacking and attack on airlines appears to be treated
= somewhat differently from ordinary crimes under international law.
= Any net.lawyers _know_?

Um, well, I'm not a net.lawyer either, but I understand that under the
Treaty of Montreal any nation has the duty to act against any hijacker/bomber.
Therefore, Libya has the options of either trying these people or handing
them over to another country to have them tried.
Note that, just like it would be in an extradition case, reasonable evidence
of guilt must be provided before Libya has to act.
This treaty therefore also allows the US to try them if they can get their
hands on them.

Daan Sandee                                           sandee@sun16.scri.fsu.edu
Thinking Machines Corporation
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute, B-186
Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-4052  (904) 644-4490
From: rwe11@cl.cam.ac.uk (Richard Earnshaw)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: British Bill: of Rights? of Goods?
Date: 14 Apr 92 13:08:06 GMT
Reply-To: rwe11@cl.cam.ac.uk (Richard Earnshaw)
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK

In article <jhdcq9c@zola.esd.sgi.com>, livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon
Livesey) writes:
|> In article <1992Apr14.084351.5968@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>,
baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker) writes:
|> |> In article <jh63hps@zola.esd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com
(Jon Livesey) writes:
|> |> >In article <1992Apr13.142400.20476@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>,
baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker) writes:
|> |> >|> 
|> |> >|> If you don't have a written Constitution that requires some kind
|> |> >|> of super-majority to amend, then what is there to stop the current
|> |> >|> government from changing the election rules any which way it wants 
|> |> >
|> |> >They'd have to amend the Representation of the People Act (I think), 
|> |> >which they could do if they had a large enough majority, and could 
|> |> >enforce the whip.  It's been amended several times, usually to extend
|> |> >the franchise (1918) or to reduce the voting age (1969).
|> |> 
|> |> That was my question: what does a "large enough majority" mean?
|> 
|> They'd have to have enough of a majority that the defection of some
|> government members left them with a majority.   If what they proposed 
|> was really obnoxious, what we might loosely refer to as "unconstitutional", 
|> I think you could depend on some government MPs simply to refuse the 
|> whip.  If all else fails, it's up to the Queen.   That would be delicate,
|> but after all, that's why we pay her the big bucks.
|> 
||> jon. 

There is also a little-known right of the House of Lords, in that it still 
maintains its right of vito over any act of self-perpetuation.  In practice
I should imagine that this would also apply to an equivalent ammendment to
the representation of the peoples act.

Richard.
From: matthew@ntl02.decnet.nokia.fi (Matthew Faupel)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: April 9th
Date: 9 Apr 92 16:17:09 GMT
Distribution: soc.culture.british
Organization: Nokia Telecommunications, Cambridge, UK

On 8 Apr 92 17:22:16 GMT, andrew@DINO.QCI.BIOCH.BCM.TMC.EDU (Andrew Sharff) said:

> Both the Conservatives and now Labour have said that they will NOT deal with 
> the Lib Dems, and after all why should either the conservatives or labour want 
> to introduce pr. It isn't in their best interests. So where does that leave
> everybody.

I don't think this is entirely true.  The current government is going to the
country at the bottom of a major recession which by its own admission it has
not handled in the best way possible.  It has had one of the most lacklustre
election campaigns on record while Labour's has possibly been its most
professional ever; Labour's front bench are widely seen as knocking spots
off of their Conservative counterparts and nevertheless it is still far from
certain that Labour will even get the most seats in parliament let alone
form a majority government.

The next boundary commission review which will happen during the lifetime of
the incoming parliament (assuming it doesn't fall apart immediately :-) is
expected to give an extra 30 or so seats to the Conservatives due to
demographic changes, so if Labour are struggling now they'll have no chance
next time.  The only hope that Labour has of being a major influence in
future governments is to introduce PR if and when they get in this time so
that they can continue to be part of a coalition government that represents
the centre-left consensus of the majority of the country.

So, in my opinion, it is in Labour's best interests (though clearly not in
the Conservative's).  As to the fact that the Labour party has said "no
deals", that should be taken with a pinch of salt; it's election talk along
the same lines as both parties' claims that they'll get an overall majority.
I'm not saying there will be a deal, but I don't think that just because
they've said they won't deal means that they *really* won't.  They're
politicians after all, and since when have we believed what politicians
say? :-)


Matthew
--
---* Amnesiac the Wizard *------------------* matthew@uk.tele.nokia.fi *---
 Opinions expressed here are not those of my company.    | NB. ntl02 is EN
 They're not even my own; I plagiarised the lot of them! | TEE EL ZERO TWO
---* matthew@ntl02.decnet.nokia.fi *------------------* Matthew Faupel *---
From: tahonen@katk.Helsinki.FI (Timo Ahonen)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Majorities (Was Re: Emigration after the Tory win on April 9th)
Date: 15 Apr 92 15:29:15 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki, Computing Centre

In article <jh6936c@zola.esd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:

>OK, but so what?   Who was the last German Chancellor whose party
>got an overall majority?   I think it was Adenauer.

Yes, the parties of the German Chancellors haven't had overall majorities 
for decades now, but the *governments* of the German Chancellors have had 
majorities both in Parliament and in popular vote: they've all been 
coalition governments. So the German governments have had the support of the 
majority of the voters, which is something the British one-party 
governments haven't had.

>jon.

Timo Ahonen               *  "Freedom rarely wears a tie"  - Loesje *
University of Helsinki    *  "The more it stays the same,           *
Finland                   *   the less it changes..."  - Spinal Tap *
Timo.Ahonen@Helsinki.FI
From: livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Inclusion of expats in UK elections
Date: 13 Apr 92 02:15:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: zola.jfml5g0
Organization: sgi

In article <1992Apr13.004613.11462@cc.uow.edu.au>, jlloyd@cc.uow.edu.au (Jonathan Lloyd) writes:
>
> Most expats who leave UK leave because they have had enough of the
> weather and the crappy wages which seem to reward mainly middle men 
> and ad execs.   Many could'nt give a toss who runs UK!

Maybe we should have people say why they left.  I left in
1970 to work for a british company, ICL, overseas, but
then I got interested in working in another country, then 
another, and now I'm on my fifth.   It wasn't so much any
negative aspect of living in the UK, rather that other
countries are interesting in their own right.   I do care
who runs the country, because I intend to go back.   That
means I don't want to see a return to rule by unions, but
I do want to see more spent on Education and Science.  I
don't want to see industry nationalised, but I do want there
to be decent social services.   What that boils down to is
that I want there to emerge a second party that I actually 
feel I can vote for.  Until that day, I guess I'm a Tory.

jon.
Newsgroups: uk.politics,soc.culture.british
From: potter@movies.enet.dec.com (Alan T Potter)
Subject: Re: Why wait 5 years?
Organisation: VMS Engineering, DEC, Scotland
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 12:23:22 GMT


In article <RJC.92Apr15203550@brodie.cstr.ed.ac.uk>, rjc@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley) writes...
>In article <1992Apr15.082231.15597@rdg.dec.com>, Alan T Potter (atp) writes:
> 
>atp> Unfortunately, the Tories appear to be wavering in their
>atp> committment to keep us free of unnecessary, expensive, extra
>atp> layers of government.
> 
>Is this a joke? The Tories are _specialists_ at introducing
>unnecesary, expensive extra layers of government. Each privetisation
>introduced an whole new corps of beurocrats to oversee the new
>`private' industry where the old beurocrats were busy as before. Their
>main health and education reforms were just to insert an extra layer
>of beurocracy at the school/hospital level. Oh and don't forget the
>national ciriculum -- gotta have a whole new class of beurocrats to
>administer that.

Okay, I shall refrain from commenting on your typing and whether a national
curriculum would have helped there.   And I take your point about extra
bureaucracy in the wake of privatisations.  But I also believe that the tex
levied on the profits made by the privatised companies more than makes up for
the cost of this bureaucracy.  And probably still leaves money over for the
Treasury's coffers.  Unlike the days when they were nationalised industries, of
course.

>And, to take the other end of this statment, there is no extra layer
>of government involved in a Scottish or Welsh parliament -- the layer
>is already there (Scottish office, Welsh office and all the quangos
>associated with them). All that is involved is a new level of
>representitives. Representitives are (relatively) cheap -- they want
>the job and get low wages, all that is needed is some offices. 

We have the representatives - they work in Westminster.  Are you saying that
either i) a TAX-RAISING assembly or ii) a NATIONAL GOVERNMENT can be run with
no staff more than is required to run the Scottish or Welsh offices?  Surely
not.

>atp> Because that's the difference between democracy and anarchy.
> 
>True, but why are you so sure we are on the better side of that division?

Because I feel safe at home at nights, because there are public services that I
can use if I need to, and because the rule of law is generally upheld and is
more prominent than mob rule.

/atp

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| potter@movies.enet.dec.com | My opinions are my own, not DEC's. 0506 423307 |
|   Alan T Potter - GM7GLJ   |   VMS Engineering, Livingston, UK, EH54 6AG    |
+----Hand me the wine and the dice, while I have thirst and lust for living---+
From: chrisc@biggus.moron.vware.mn.org (Chris Cox  W0/G4JEC)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: ENGLISH AS SHE IS SPOKE
Date: 12 Apr 92 01:01:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: biggus.1992Apr12.010118.11154
Organization: Twin Cities Metro Area Network, Minneapolis, MN  USA

In article <9APR199208212465@zeus.tamu.edu> pac9897@zeus.tamu.edu (REVENGE OF THE KILLER TOMATOES) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.185424.10858@husc3.harvard.edu>, koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis) writes...
>>In Britain all soda seems to be referred to as "cokes". Probably because
>>they havent been inundated with all the stuff we have here like sprite,
>>7-up, root beer, cream soda, etc.etc.
>> 
>>But soda, soda pop, and soft drink I think often have regional uses
>>in the US.
>
>Well, everyone I know calls 'em soft drinks, I haven't come across a
>British person yet who would call a Sprite a Coke - it just doesn't make
>sense.
>

I concur.  FWIW.

Chris  W0/G4JEC
From: gstone@dmssyd.syd.dms.CSIRO.AU (Glenn Stone)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: The General Election
Date: 10 Apr 92 01:31:23 GMT
Reply-To: gstone@dmssyd.syd.dms.CSIRO.AU (Glenn Stone)
Organization: CSIRO Division of Mathematics and Statistics, Australia
Originator: gstone@topsy.syd.dms.CSIRO.AU



 Is it true that the uninteresting has defeated the unbelievable and the unelectable?

 I think Im going to cry!

 Glenn
D
From: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: TORIES AND THE SELFISH,AROGANT ENGLISH
Date: 13 Apr 92 11:58:36 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

From: clg308@vaxa.strath.ac.uk
>as far into a recession as it could go,and still they get elected.I have
>like many other Scots long regarded the english as a selfish nation as
>was proven yesterdat in the election.As long as they have a safe job and
>money in thier pocket,the rest can be dammed.Evey other party would have put
>up taxes in order to make the country and life for it's people better,a
>measure that most in Scotland feel necessary to improve the country.

I am as sick as you are about the election result. However, the
recession has now hit the south-east of England so hard that we
have a higher unemployment rate than Scotland. Maybe that's why
Scotland was the only part of the UK where the Tories increased
their share of the vote.

I am afraid that you are simply repeating Tory propaganda when
you say that a Tory vote is a "selfish vote". You are admitting
that a Tory vote would actually increase people's standard of
living. In my view, a Tory vote is a remarkable selfless vote.
It is a vote to decrease your standard of living for all but
the most wealthy 10% of the population who are milking this
country of its wealth, and would shove all their assets abroad
at the first sign of any threat to it.

Why is it that economic blackmail by Trade Unions is seen as
such a terrible thing, but economic blackmail by the rich seen
as acceptable?

Matthew Huntbach
From: pac9897@zeus.tamu.edu (SMELLS LIKE JOHN MAJOR....)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: The Decline of Britain (was Re: Great Britain as a malfunctioning democracy)
Date: 14 Apr 92 21:30:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: zeus.14APR199216300953
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Apr14.133600.10682@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>,
 baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker) writes...
>Do you consider the magazine _The_Economist_ to be a "tabloid" or
>"tory propaganda"?  Do you consider its editors and writers to be "morons"
>and "bigots"?

I think it probably fits into the group of Tory propaganda, since you ask.
Whilst I think it is a good magazine, I really do not think it is
worth the orgasms that so many Americans seem to have at it's mere mention.
You may care to remember that The Economist was the magazine that backed
water and electricity privatization, the introduction of the Poll Tax
and several other of the less popular Conservative policies. I doubt that
the Economist has been what one could call objective since Rupert Murdoch
bought it out in the 1980's.

Philip A. Carney		On Exchange from Lancaster University,
Texas A&M University, TX	England.

**********ALL VIEWS EXPRESSED ARE MY OWN, NOT NECESSARILY THOSE OF**************
******TEXAS A & M UNIVERSITY, LANCASTER UNIVERSITY OR THEIR ASSOCIATES**********

"The lust for power is rooted not in strength, but in weakness..." - Erich Fromm
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon)
Subject: Re: Dork (was dweeb)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 01:23:14 GMT
Summary: the verbing of English nouns

In article <1992Apr16.183510.16006@trilithon.mpk.ca.us>, henry@trilithon
(Henry McGilton) writes:

> Years ago I met a bunch of American people in Europe and I was under the
> impression they used the word `dork' as a synonym for copulation.  At least,
> they were always breaking into laughs at the notion of  `Dorking in Surrey'.

This would indeed amuse the sophomoric, but mostly at their own cleverness
in turning the noun into a verb.  The standard American usage makes it a
noun (heard almost exclusively in the vocative case, in dormitories and
fraternity houses, and with a trace more refinement in 3rd person from
subsequent editions of the same people.)  'Twould be interesting to
learn the origins, however ...
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		   "Oh, stand, stand at the window,
					As the tears scald and start;
mls@usl.com			   You shall love your crooked neighbor
standard disclaimer			With your crooked heart."