HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: matthew@ntl02.decnet.nokia.fi (Matthew Faupel)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: News from Ambridge (plus explanation for Ceci)
Date: 17 Apr 92 11:40:35 GMT
	<7535@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> <1992Apr14.182913.5449@vax.oxford.ac.uk>
	<7554@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au>
Organization: Nokia Telecommunications, Cambridge, UK

In article <7554@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> colin@cs.uq.oz.au (Colin Millerchip) writes:

> In <1992Apr14.182913.5449@vax.oxford.ac.uk> wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:

>>  ......Elizabeth Archer is pregnant by Cameron Fraser. He wants (-ed?) her to
>>have an abortion (they seem to have mysteriously got back together today).
>>Fraser is in big financial trouble. He has threatened the Grundys with
>>eveiction if they don't pay the rent within 8 weeks (they're only 500 pounds
>>short). He is still not selling Red House Farm to the Archers. Mike Tucker has
>>a new job as a feed sales rep. Pat and Tony haven't got soil association
>>approval for their new 22 acres. Nigel Pargetter is getting much more
>>succesful: Lizzie now works for him. And that's only scratching the surface of
>>the storylines....
>>Stephen
>> 

> Is the Scottish slime-ball holding out on Red House Farm because he's 
> miffed at Lizzy not having an abortion?

No.  He's not holding out, he has offered to sell.  However, what's miffing
Phil and David is that he wants the money before Michaelmas (presumably 
because he's in financial hot water at the moment).  The Archers think
(quite rightly) that this is an unreasonably short time to pay up in.

>                                          How did Mrs. Antribus [sic] & 
> Mrs. Snell react to this out-of-wedlock event?

They don't know yet.

>                                                 Is Lizzy's friendship 
> with Nigel leading anywhere (like, up Fraser's nose, and towards 
> wedding bells):-):-):-)?

Nigel knows about the pregnancy and has offered his unconditional support.
He's still obviously interested in Lizzy, and Lizzy is just as obviously
uninterested in him.  She's actually gone back to Cameron despite the fact
that he's so pig-headed he still hasn't spotted the fact that she really
does want the baby...


Matthew

P.S.  For Ceci, who asked what it's all about.  The Archers is a long running
radio series which started in the 1950s as a public-spirited attempt to get
people more aware of farming and has developed into one of the most popular
radio programs in the UK.  It's based around the semi-mythical village of
Ambridge in the county of Borsetshire which one gathers is somewhere south
of Birmingham and tells "an everyday tale of farming folk" as it used to be
introduced.

--
---* 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 *---
Newsgroups: uk.politics,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.celtic
From: francis@oas.stanford.edu (Francis Muir)
Subject: Re: Scots at Sea
Organization: Stanford Exploration Project
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 12:54:47 GMT

Alan J Holmes writes:

	Anthony J. Cunningham writes:

		Ken Johnson writes:

			I was, incidentally, impressed by Salmond's depth 
			of knowledge of policy.  Asked how many fighting 
			men and ships the Scottish Navy would need, he was 
			able to answer immediately (20,000 men and four 
			ships). 

		5000 men to a ship. What's he going to buy? The starship 
		Enterprise?

	What a Charlie!  It requires many more (wo)men to provide support
	than are actually carried on the ships.

If Alan is serious, then, come the day Scotia wins her Independence, I
can see wonderful opportunities for a budding MacGilbert & O'Sullivan to
write a new derisory musical "HMSS Cutty Sark". A ship "requires" 5000 
persons indeed. To carry it from Clyde to Forth? With a top-heavy military
you'll likely have another *Flowers of the Field* to add to the Song Book.

							Francis Muir

francis@sep.stanford.edu
From: smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Great Britain as a malfunctioning democracy
Date: 16 Apr 92 09:07:47 GMT
Reply-To: P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Organization: University of Bristol

In article <1992Apr15.155534.518@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
>Candidates in UK elections are selected by the local branch of
>their party, not by the party nationally. It may therefore be
>assumed that if an MP votes against the party lines in the
>interests of his or her constituency, he or she will get the
>backing of the local party.

This is only formally true, is the impression I get.  There were cases
reported (both Tory and Labour) before the recent election of
candidates being 'imposed' on local branches -- which, presumably,
means the national party managed some sort of pressure on them.  And,
after the election, the Tories were commenting on the probability of
standing Chris Patten at the first available byelection -- and, since
they don't even know where that will be, they certainly haven't talked
to the local party about it.  (Interestingly, though, Beeb radio news
this morning said that Patten has been offered the Governorship of Hong
Kong.  No word as to whether he will accept it.)

Anyhow, back to the question at hand, it looks like the national
parties over here can apply a lot of pressure to the local branches,
even if the local branch has the final say.  (Of course, if the local
branch gets it wrong, they may get 'expelled' from the party, and a new
local branch set up -- we saw a Labour case or two of that.)  The
contrast is that the US national parties really have no power at all
over the local ones.  Quite the contrary.

-- 
Paul Smee, Computing Service, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1UD, UK
 P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk - ..!uunet!uknet!bsmail!p.smee - Tel +44 272 303132
From: nikkhah@skyfox.usask.ca
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Blessing in disguise for LABOUR PARTY
Date: 11 Apr 92 20:20:19 GMT
Organization: University of Saskatchewan

Although Labour failed to get elected to government by gaining a 9%
swing(something that has not been achieved since 1945) now they are
in such a position that the TORY government cannot blame them for
the ills that unfortunately the British People are going to experience
in the next 4 or 5 years. The present recession is a result of world-wide
re-adjustment of the capitalist strategy that is affecting US, CANADA, AUSTRALIAEUROPE and many parts of less developed world. Whatever government was elected
would have at this time little freedom to turn-round the economy independent
of these factors. If the Labour government had been elected with a small
majority the Tories would have been perfectly positoned to say "We told you
so" and blame the condition of economy on Labour policies. If Major thinks that
he can do better than Labour let him do so. The majority of people thnk that
he can, but after all it doesn't mean that they are necesarily correct. it just
takes a bit longer in this complex political world for political forces to
show their true face. Some comentator suggested that Britain was becoming a one
party syustem like Japan. I think these young American reporters are illetrate.
The rich heritage of the Labour movement in UK from Kier Hardy to Clement Attlee and the present Labour Party is not comparablle to what has been in Japan.

In Canada iN Ontario the largest and most economically important province an
NDP (LABOUR) gvernment was elected last year. The same thing happened in
British Columbia and in Saskatchewan. Now these "caring" gpvernments are faced
with the same dilema that a Labour government in UK would have been faced with.
They have to raise taxes , cut services and deal with massive unemployment rates
You see the problem is that BIG CAPITAL works hand in glove with TORY governmentand it is they who really dictate the economy and not the government. It is too much to expect a Labour government to turn things round without using its
traditional base i.e. relance on ordinary working people and their institutions.
After all one Tory Party is enough! I predict that two or three years down the
road after Tories have lost half a dozen bye-elections to LIB-DEms and Labour.
After National Health and other services have been cut down further, after
more unemployment and other social problems, after more troubles in Ulster, Tthe Labour Party will brak out of the historical lapse of its past 20 years (by
then that is) and will govern with a much greater mandate than th Tories have
now.
From: pac9897@zeus.tamu.edu (THEY SENTENCED ME TO 5 MORE YEARS)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Emmigration after the Tory win on April 9th
Date: 12 Apr 92 18:03:00 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Apr12.134958.20238@canon.co.uk>, 
smith@canon.co.uk (Mark Smith) writes...
>pac9897@zeus.tamu.edu (SO MUCH FOR DEMOCRACY IN BRITAIN) writes:
>> I was just thinking, all of my British friends (with one or two exceptions)
>> who are at university were considering emmigration now that it has
>> become clear that our democracy no longer functions properly.
> 
>So will they be leaving immediately, or continue sponging 
>off the state until they've finished their degrees?

As a free citizen of Europe, I am free to move around as I see fit. The reason
I'm going to have to go abroad is precisely becuase I cannot afford to
stay after my degree should I wish to study further.
As a student I have to a)pay back a substantial part of my grant which
is now in the form of a Tory loan and b)work throughout all my holidays
to meet the increasing costs.
Oh, and when I've earned enough I've paid income tax, I payed my Poll
Tax and ever since I was capable of buying sweets I've been paying VAT.
If you think today's students are spongers then you real should look
at the facts, the British economy benefits greatly from their cheap
labour every holiday and since the Tories abolished it in 1990, students
have not been eligable for _any_ kind of income support or poverty relief
regardless of how hard up they are.
It is exactly your kind of "spongers" attitude that I look forward to getting
away from. I've spent all my life listening to ill-informed smart-arsed
Sun reading Daily Express right-wing cracks and I'm sick to the back teeth
of it.

>Don't you feel guilty about enjoying the benefits of a university 
>in a country where parents have to save for years to give their 
>own children the opportunity?  I don't suppose any of your friends
>will be emigrating there.

I think you'll find I've gone heavily into debt myself to be here, plus
an American student has had the chance to study in Britain in my place
for this year.
You are right though, unless I ever do well enough to study PhD - and
they actually _pay_ you to teach and do phD over here - I shall not be settling
in the U.S..
You obviously have no idea how heatbreaking a system where even state
universities charge so much is - there are plenty of gifted people here
who have had to forgo University education or join the military to
get it free, simply because their parents could not come up with the readies.
The American University system is brilliant, but rather unjust in some cases.


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

Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:6541 soc.culture.celtic:3598
From: billp@pcsbst.pcs.com (Bill Potter)
Newsgroups: uk.politics,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: Women in parliament
Keywords: April 9th and April 11th
Date: 15 Apr 92 20:48:19 GMT
Reply-To: billp@pcsbst.pcs.com (Bill Potter)
Organization: PCS Computer Systeme GmbH

In article <1222@lysator.liu.se>, ceci@lysator.liu.se (Ceci Henningsson)
writes:
> Someone talked about minority candidates for parliament and I got the
> impression that they were under-representated. How about women?
> 
> I suppose they make up at least 50% of the voters, or do some women
> refrain from voting because of their sex?

No, or not significantly.

> How many female candidates were there? 

Not enough!

> Were there any significant differences between the parties as to the
> percentage of each gender's candidates?  

Other seems to have answered this as LibDem > Labour > Tory.

> Does any party in Britain use a qota system for gender representation
> the way many European environment parties do?

Yes, the English and Scottish Green Parties bith had quotas, I think.

> One might think that having a female prime minister for many years
> would make a country more open to women in politics. Has this
> happened? 

Ah, she was female, was she.

> I heard that tory politicians had made outright racist statements
> about a coloured tory candidate, have similar things happened to
> female candidates?

Yes - that relic from the past, the dreadful Fairburn made a comment
about how his family had been Scots for 2 million years and he was damned
if he was going to pay any attention to an upstart Irish tinker immigrant,
the female SNP candidate (his words, not mine). This remark caused the
Scottish Conservatives to disown him but strangely his constituents
didn't. Which only goes to show that Perth and Perthshire is a 
very strange place.

=============================================================================
Bill Potter    : unido!pcsbst!billp       : 1992 - 500th Anniv. of a lost
PCS GmbH       : billp@pcsbst.pcs.com     : Italian sailor and 200th Anniv.
D8000 Muenchen : You can't sink a RAINBOW : of the year of the sheep.
=============================================================================
From: cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Chris Cooke)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: MAJOR WINS MAJORITY!!!
Date: 16 Apr 92 16:22:21 GMT
	<1992Apr15.155401.1912@pcsbst.pcs.com>
	<1992Apr16.015102.1563@leland.Stanford.EDU> <jjm6ia0@zola.esd.sgi.com>
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
In-reply-to: livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com's message of 16 Apr 92 02:49:08 GMT

In article <jjm6ia0@zola.esd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:

   This week Time commented that compared to 1979, Major has taking 
   over "A country transformed".

Yes, true, but mostly transformed for the worse, I fear.  Our medical system
is far worse, as is our educational system and our welfare system (we now
have homeless people and beggars all over the place; we used to care for
them).  Our public transport system is far worse than it was; we have
three-to-four times as many unemployed people as we had under Labour; in
Scotland, my home, over half the industry has disappeared;  mentally ill
people are pushed out of closing mental hospitals and left to wander the
streets;  our crime rate has shot up, and our prisons are so full that jail
terms have been drastically reduced for most prisoners; we pay more tax than
we did under Labour, and more of it is demanded from the poor, even those
with no money at all; our science funding has been drastically cut, and our
research & development has in a lot of areas ceased to exist;  our government
has been strongly centralised (no federal states for the UK, federal
government is evil, say the Tories); I could go on.
--
	-- Chris. 	cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk   (on Janet, cc@uk.ac.ed.dcs)
From: jes@tcom.stc.co.uk (JES)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Rampant paranoia (was Voting slips: what happens to them,DANGER!)
Date: 7 Apr 92 08:38:16 GMT
Reply-To: jes@tcom.stc.co.uk (JES)
Organization: NT Europe Limited, London N11 1HB.

In article <1992Apr04.213121.8468@robobar.co.uk> gtoal@robobar.co.uk (Graham Toal "gtoal@vangogh.cs.berkeley.edu") writes:
>OK, what you missed (and haven't noticed any time you voted) is that
>when you go to vote, they find your name in a large book.

The book is electoral register.  This is the means by which you are
'ticked off' when you vote, so that you cannot vote more than once.  You
cannot vote at a polling station where you are not on the register (for
that station).

>Your name
>has a number next to it.  You are given a voting form with that
>number on it.

??  Don't remember that bit.  The ballot paper is always stamped, which
validates it.  I ballot paper without a stamp is invalid.

>Therefore it is trivially easy to find out how you
>voted.

I don't believe this - but I will take careful note when I vote
on Thursday.

>Wht we Brits have stood for this blatant disregard for
>democracy for so long never fails to surprise me.  The 'party line'
>is that the information is needed to catch abuse of the voting system
>where unscrupulous people may vote more than once or some such rot.
>Doesn't make sense to me.  The names alone should be enough...

>G

Dave Kennard
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: sue@netcom.com (Sue Miller)
Subject: Re: Marmite in S.F. Bay Area?
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 01:23:18 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Apr13.173752.26498@novell.com> rbailey@wc.novell.com (Robert Bailey) writes:
>This may be a FAQ, I don't usually read this group... 
>
>I have a friend who is having serious Marmite withdrawal problems. Is
>there a place in San Francisco, or nearby, where she can get some?
>

The question is more like "Where can't she get marmite in the SF
bay area?"  I see it on the shelves of most major supermarkets,
and often in the smaller sorts of shops as well.  Safeway near
Stanford (El Camino Real) has it For Sure.  Also the Buy & Save
Market at Willow & Middlefield in Menlo Park.  For some reason I
notice when this item is in stock, even though I personally abhor
the stuff.  :-)



Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc
From: livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: British Bill: of Rights? of Goods?
Organization: sgi
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 00:06:06 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.225615.23253@nntp.hut.fi>, jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
|> In article <jg1c8oc@zola.esd.sgi.com>, livesey@solntze (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> 
|> >to deal with perceived threats, the IRA, say, or Gen. Noriega.   In 
|> >extreme cases, such as the imprisonment of the Nisei, the US 
|> >government can drive a coach and horses through the Bill of Rights, 
|> >and as long as the mass of the citizens agree, even the Supreme
|> >Court goes along with it (actually twice, in that case). 
|> 
|> But do the citizens really agree?  And why do they agree that the Bill
|> of Rights can be thrown in the trash?  ie. What went wrong, is it that
|> everybody has been brainwashed by too much television and too little
|> information, too little education?  Or is it that nothing went wrong,
|> the people just did not like the system as described in the U.S.
|> Constitution?

Good questions, but I think that the point is that, for whatever 
reason, the Govt. *can* convince the citzens to go along with 
something that, from our perspective today, looks like a violation
of natural justice (locking up people becasue their ancestors
were Japanese) and the Bill of Rights does *not* protect them.

|> 
|> >Secondly, it's often not the rights of the citzen that are the
|> >whole story, but rather the limits that can be placed on the
|> >actions of Government.   A Government that can finance some of
|> >its operations outside the normal legislative channels can do 
|> >whatever it wants, Constitution or not.
|> 
|> I suppose that's why the U.S. Constitution enumerates the powers of
|> the government, and a power to finance covert operations is not one of
|> them.  (I'm a bit in the dark here, where's that asbestos suite..)

Yes indeed.   Like any other Government, the US Govt. finds that it
can govern much more efficiently and conveniently if it can ignore
the rules.   Being able to raise money outside the normal process is
obviously a way to do that.   As the English Parliament found in
the Middle Ages, the key power is the power to tax.  Lose that,
and you lose more or less everything.

jon.
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:6418 soc.culture.europe:3756
From: pm3_norr@csd.brispoly.ac.uk (Paul Norris)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Why Tories won the election (and Opinion Polls lost it).
Date: 14 Apr 92 17:32:05 GMT
Organization: Bristol Polytechnic, England

In article <jh77418@zola.esd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
}In article <1992Apr13.195259.26511@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk>, jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) writes:
}|> 
}|> Another factor that I've only seen "Socialist" put numbers on: people
}|> who've dropped off the register because of the poll tax.  They were
}|> claiming 200,000, almost solidly Labour.
}
}I guess there is something I must be missing here.   The claim is that
}people drop off the rolls so that they can cheat on their taxes.  And
}the way this tax cheat works is, supposedly, that after they drop off,
}the Govt. doesn't know who they are.
}
}Yet a magazine that I don't think I've ever heard of, knows how many
}of them there are, and also their voting intentions.  

Quite a simple project, actually - check up on the numbers recorded
as having registered to vote on the electoral rolls (which are in the
public domain if I remember rightly) and see if there's been a massive
reduction - in certain areas of the country there has....

Paul
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: walker@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Graham Walker, 227 West Old Main,268-3847,)
Subject: Re: McIllvaney(?)
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 20:46:05 GMT

There has been a call to discuss something in addition to NI and
Scottish Indep. Well here goes. Last summer when I returned to Peterhead
I read a good review of McIllvaney's latest book (which had to do with
Laidlaw's brothers dead). However, the book was not to be released until
after I had left the country, and I have now forgotten the name of the
book. So, could someone post the name of the book, and if possible give
a few comments about its "quality."

											Thanks,

											Graham Walker
											Mech. Eng.
											Clarkson Univ.
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (From A to B)
Newsgroups: uk.politics,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Simple message
Date: 7 Apr 92 15:58:38 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

wjmc@unix.brighton.ac.uk (-*_Spikey_Tribble_*-) writes:
> 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 :-
[...]
> >    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.

Classic Yes Minister thinking.  "We must do something.  This is something we
can do.  Therefore we must do this."

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

I think he should stick to physics.


mathew

-- 
Hail Eris! / "Our whole economy's based on fear and death; how long can we get
away with this?" --- Jello Biafra / Message for Kodak: Bring back Dan Bredy! /
PGP RSA public key available on request / Desperately seeking Negativland's U2
CD / Just another would-be Mac owner put off by Apple's monopolistic practices
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:6016 rec.arts.books:7772
From: igb@fulcrum.bt.co.uk (Ian G Batten)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: ENGLISH AS SHE IS SPOKE
Date: 10 Apr 92 09:26:53 GMT
Organization: Fulcrum Communications

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

I've never heard that.  ``pop'' maybe.

ian
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,rec.arts.books