HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Salaries+cost of living in UK
Date: 5 Nov 92 14:21:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: pixel.1992Nov5.142149.18669
Organization: Vonnegut Tent Rentals, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Andrew Jackson (ajj@zycor.lgc.com) wrote:
> Hello all,
> 
> I am asking this question on behalf of my dad. He is a contract
> programmer and has an opportunity to work for someone in Windsor
> (I have forgotten for whom). The contract would last nine months.
> 
> Could somebody out there clue me in about Windsor and vicinity? Is
> housing readily available? If so, where would be a good place to
> look? Should my parents bother with a car? Questions about basic
> living in Windsor (if there is such a thing).
> 
Well, how about trying

Grace and Favour Accomodations Ltd.
Buck House
London

They have a large property base in Windsor,  including an immense and
ancient edifice in quite splendid grounds.  I understand, though, that
the owner is near retirement and may wish to sell up to avoid having the
properties taken over by her increasingly fractious progeny and their
infamous spouses.  Could be an investment opportunity.....

--
||Halloween Candy: the office snack    |
||from Nov. 1st onwards............... |Puff the Magic Dragon
||-------------------------------------|Lived by the sea
||Dave Jones (dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com)|Who knows what's in the autumn mists
||Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY      |In the mind of Yadallee?
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Rule Britannia
Date: 12 Nov 1992 04:07:38 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com


In article <1992Nov12.005613.18747@maths.tcd.ie>, dwilkins@maths.tcd.ie writes:
> 
> The history of Irish politics is not a permanent state of coalitions.
> [large chunks of history deleted]

Well let's be careful about context here.    I didn't say that
Ireland had been in a permanent state of coalitions.  I asked
if this is what we want to happen in the UK.   As a separate
issue, I invited people to consider the state of Irish politics.

> Okay, so the current government happens to have collapsed
> just now.  But this is not symptomatic of perennial instability
> due to P.R., as your posting seemed to suggest. 

Well, I'm not sure about that.   I read that the precitating
events were public slanging matches between the leaders of the
coalition parties.   It seems to me that I hear about Govt.
crises in Ireland quite often.

As I said before, I don't think that I have to show that in
each and every case, PR has led to disaster.  I merely observe
that for every Germany, where some form of PR seems to work
fairly well, there is some other country where it does not seem
to work well at all.

It seems to me that the onus is on those proposing such a change
to show that it would in fact improve politics in the UK.

jon.

Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,soc.culture.canada
From: godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE GODFREY)
Subject: Re: In your school?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Organization: Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 14:29:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.010627.19764@philmtl.philips.ca>, ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Ray Dunn)         writes...
>In refd article, u8971@cray.com (Ronald Maier) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov4.142058.25471@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA> bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross) writes:
>>>godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE GODFREY) writes:
>>> It's true, I dislike Canada a great deal.
>>All he does is stir things up and moan and complain about things.  I use
>>the kill file and delete all his posting so I don't know how this one got
>>through.
> 
>I don't know either, but one thing I can say, Laurence is the only person
>I've ever had email from accusing me of having put him in a kill file
>(which I hadn't).  It clearly bothered him.  This was just because I
>happened to post a response that was vaguely similar to one that he had
>made.
> 
>Perhaps this level of paranoia explains his anti-Canada posts too.  There's
>certainly never any substance in his moaning.
> 
>Bizarre,  quite bizarre.
> 
>BTW Laurence, how _do_ you manage to post via the SSC Lab on your home
>built PC from your London garret?
>-- 
>Ray Dunn at home        |  Beaconsfield, Quebec  |  Phone: (514) 630 3749
>ray@philmtl.philips.ca  |  dunn@cam.org          |  uunet!sobeco!philmtl!ray

I admit to being mistaken about the kill file - I was confusing you with
another of my aggressive correspkndents.  I have a modem

Laurence
From: ccsdhd@sunlab1.bath.ac.uk (Dennis Davis)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Grauniad headline Shock Horror
Date: 13 Nov 92 15:03:09 GMT
Organization: Bath University Computing Services, UK

In the referenced article, mgw@haggis.physics.mun.ca (Martin White) writes:
>This reminds me of a headline on the back (sports) page of the
>Independant a couple of years ago. Previewing the upcoming clash
>between England and France in the Rugby 5 Nations championship, the
>headline proclaimed;
>
>          Condom back in French pack

Rugby fans are far more learned, erudite and witty than football fans.
Not that that is a difficult or outstanding achievement.  At the match
they were chanting:

      "Our Johnny is better than your Condom."

in honour of one of the English players.
-- 
Dennis Davis, BUCS, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK
D.H.Davis@bath.ac.uk
From: esh2@po.CWRU.Edu (Evelyn S. Hlabse)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: British foods
Date: 13 Nov 92 19:21:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.1e0v87INNjgh
Reply-To: esh2@po.CWRU.Edu (Evelyn S. Hlabse)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


I would appreciate receiving the names of places in the
US where I can order British foods.  I have the names of
a couple but the shipping charges are outrageous.  Any
suggestions?


-- 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: evansg@uproar.enet.dec.com (Gwyn Evans @ IME)
Subject: Re: Split soc.culture.british
Reply-To: evansg@uproar.enet.dec.com (Gwyn Evans @ IME)
Organization: Digital Equipment Service Industries Solutions Company Ltd
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 12:13:59 GMT


In article <1992Nov11.205506.29648@rdg.dec.com>,
cockburn@edieng.enet.dec.com (Craig Cockburn) writes:
>
>The volume of messages in this group is getting very large - has 
>anyone considered splitting the group?

  Not seriously, although I'd be interested in what sort of splits
you had in mind. How about:-

	soc.culture.british.speech
	soc.culture.british.geography
	soc.culture.british.news
	soc.culture.british.politics
	
   and for the occasional spill-over from t.p.g,

	soc.culture.british.wot.no.guns

  What did I miss, I wonder?

Gwyn
--
+======================================================================+
| Gwyn Evans  | evansg@uproar.enet.dec.com |  Uxbridge, Middlesex, UK  |
| DESISCo - Digital Equipment Service Industries Solutions Company Ltd |
|  Views expressed and statements made are mine and not those of DEC   |
+======================================================================+
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:15489 alt.folklore.urban:27866
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: The amazing disappearing British Constitution
Date: 9 Nov 1992 19:28:49 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com


In article <BxFKu4.3Dv@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU>, streater@unixjr.SLAC.Stanford.EDU writes:
> 
> I for one would appreciate a good modern reference to the British Constitution.
> Any offers?

I've got "A Legal and constitutional History of England"
I'll post a fuller reference.

jon.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: cockburn@edieng.enet.dec.com (Craig Cockburn)
Subject: Re: Re: Accent and Dialect, the politics thereof
Organization: Digital Equipment Co. Ltd., Reading, England
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 07:55:26 GMT


In article <115700001@hpcuhe.cup.hp.com>, megana@hpcuhe.cup.hp.com (Megan Adams) writes...
>I'm surprised I haven't seen this old joke on this thread:
> 
>- What is the difference between a language and a dialect?
> 
>- A language is a dialect with an army.
> 

Catalonia doesn't have its own army.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Craig Cockburn, Digital Equipment Co. Ltd, Reading, England.     Suas
  Internet: cockburn@edieng.enet.dec.com                           leis
  UUCP:..!decwrl!edieng.enet.dec.com!cockburn                      a'
                                                                   Gha\idhlig!
  Views here are my own, and are not necessarily those of Digital
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: ambidge@ecf.toronto.edu (Chris Ambidge)
Subject: Re: Britain doesn't have a Constitution (Re: An astonishing Guy)
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 14:15:21 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.211500.1973@pixel.kodak.com> dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones) writes:
>Steve McKinty - Sun ICNC (smckinty@sunicnc.France.Sun.COM) wrote:
>> 
>> Then again it might just indicate the the British Parliament have the
>> wit not to pass unconstitutional laws...
>>
>This touches on a distinct disadvantage of the US system: that laws may
>be passed with the full knowledge that they are unconstitutional, simply
>to please certain pressure groups, in the sure and certain knowledge that
>the courts will invalidate them in good time.  Flag-burning is the most
>recent obvious case.  Of course, some dumb cluck has to be set up as the
>test case, with all the attendant problems.  The most famous 'cluck' of
>this century was the schoolteacher Scopes in the famous Monkey Trial.
>He volunteered to be arrested for teaching Evolution in order to force
>the law to be tested in court.

One problem with your analogy there, Dave:  Scopes was found guilty,
the Scopes Monkey  Trial  was lost, and the law prohibiting the teaching
of evolution in (?)Tennessee remained on the books for 42 years.
-- 
-------------------------------------------
Chris Ambidge / ambidge@ecf.toronto.edu / ambidge@ecf.utoronto.ca  
   chemical engineering / university of toronto
   200 college st / toronto ON / M5S 1A4 // 416 978 3106
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Britain doesn't have a Constitution (Re: An astonishing Guy)
Date: 12 Nov 1992 00:21:25 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com


In article <1992Nov11.105149.15347@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>, mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk writes:
> From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
> >I'd also say that one virtue of the British system is that when
> >we need dictatorship, for example that all-party goverment of
> >the Second World War, we just go ahead and do it, up front,
> >without pretence.   I hope that we all also recognize the dangers
> >of doing so, and don't hide behind the figleaf of some supposed
> >system.
> 
> A vice is that we still get a dictatorship when we don't need
> it, and we do hide behind a figleaf. A party in Britain can get
> a majority in the Commons on less than 40% of the vote.

And Bill Clinton can get a landslide in the Electoral
College on less than fifty percent of the vote.   What's
more, he can then appoint unelected ministers to his
cabinet, and replace most of the heads of the civil
service,


> It is usual for MPs to vote as the party leaders tell
> them, all the House of Lords can do is delay a bill by a
> year, and the Head of State hasn't vetoed one since 1707.

And in the US, the President *can* veto Bills unless two
third of the legislature votes to over-ride, thus thwarting
the will of the elected representatives of the People.

Matthew makes it sound like the power of the Lords to
thwart the Commons, and the habit of the Crown of vetoing
Bills were valuable rights that were wrenched from our
outraged hands.     I don't believe it was quite like that.


> There's no Supreme Court to strike down bills that go against
> human rights.

Oh?   Did the European Court of Human Rights get abolished
while I was out to lunch?   Did they abolish the Law Lords?


> The only safeguard....

Forgetting the Courts, since they are inconvenient for the
argument.


> .....is the possibility of a backbench revolt in the government
> party, and this is put down by the usual methods (governments
> don't give jobs to MPs who don't toe the line

Whereas in the US rebels get jobs all the time?


>                             - there's been rumours
> of nastier threats used too, such as sexual blackmail).

Tut, tut.   We certainly don't have sexual blackmail
here.   Just ask Garry Studds.      We just have the State
Department investigating the travel records of Presidential
candidates.   And their mothers' (!)


> So most British governments are in effect elected
> dictatorships.

Tell that to Maggie Thatcher, and Jim Callaghan.

jon.
From: riaedwards@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au (AUDREY EDWARDS)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Just a quick question
Date: 8 Nov 92 09:31:40 GMT
Organization: Halls of Residence, Monash University

In article <1992Nov6.155635.6990@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
>From: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
>Subject: Re: Just a quick question
>Date: 6 Nov 92 15:56:35 GMT

>From: rsthomas@nyx.cs.du.edu (Rich Thomas)

>>Could someone tell me (email please) the definition of
>>a common-law marriage in England? Thanks.

>The phrase is used so often that many people believe there is a
>legal definition. There is not. If you are living with someone
>as man and wife, but don't have a marriage certificate then if
>you die without a will your partner gets nothing. Same applies
>to any other rules where marriage brings you some benefit. On
>the other hands if it causes you to lose out (liability for
>poll tax, entitlement to social security) any form of
>cohabiting is treated as marriage. There's tales of social
>security official measuring temperatures of beds with
>thermometers to find if two people have been sleeping there and
>thus can't claim welfare as their combind earnings are too
>high.

>Matthew Huntbach

You are partially right on the inheritance point. If you die intestate, then 
there are probate rules as to the division of your estate, to your 
married spouse and children. However, if you were 'dependant' on your 
partner (regardless of your status), who has died intestate, then you can 
make an application under the Inheritance Act to either vary the terms of a 
will, or claim under the intestacy.

One more thing...I cannot see how your marital status affects your liability 
for poll tax.

Audrey.
From: Trevor.Kirby@newcastle.ac.uk (Trevor Kirby)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Lyrics to God Save the Queen
Date: 5 Nov 92 10:06:09 GMT
Organization: Computing Laboratory, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK NE1 7RU.


In article <Bx7G10.CA1@math.uwaterloo.ca>, arpepper@math.uwaterloo.ca (Adrian Pepper) writes:
>In article <1992Nov3.100808.18246@infodev.cam.ac.uk> gdb15@cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry) writes:
>>Could someone post the entire libretto of Wagner's "Ring" cycle ...
>
>How about something really important?  Information about that classic
>popular song, "My ol' Man's a Dus'man"...

My old mans a dustman,
he wears a dustmans hat, 
he wears gor blimey trousers
and he lives in a council flat
 
cue washboard solo

Lonnie where are you now, we could use the washboard on the bonfire tonight.

 Trev 
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:15391 alt.folklore.urban:27732
From: linden@positive.Eng.Sun.COM (Trelford Pinkerton)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Can the Prime Minster be Catholic?
Date: 8 Nov 1992 20:04:22 GMT
Organization: The Bishop Sandwich Band
NNTP-Posting-Host: positive

Some gentleman posting from Cambridge makes a somewhat petulant snappish
demand to either dummy up the proof that the Prime Minister of Britain
can't be Catholic, or withdraw the posting.

I withdraw it -- I guess I was thinking of the law that says the heir
to the throne may not marry a Catholic.   This has been tested in recent
times with Princess Michael of Kent.  She wanted to remain a Catholic
and bring her kids up Catholic, but not so Catholic that they would be
excluded from the line of succession.  She seems to have pulled it off, too.

A Catholic prime minister would certainly raise major questions of
protocol however: for example, certain appointments within Britian's
State Church (Bishoprics, etc) are made on the prime minister's
recommendation.    A Catholic prime minister would therefore be selecting
the leaders of a competing franchise.

So has there ever been a Catholic prime minister?
There are about 5.5M Roman Catholics in Britain today, and about 27M Anglicans.
Therefore we might expect about one PM in five to be Roman Catholic, in
the absence of factors working against this.

Well, has there ever been a Catholic prime minister of Britain?


Trelford "no Gladstone, Disraeli, or Churchill jokes here" Pinkerton.
--
   Inventor of the Lambada-Calculus.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban
From: dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks)
Subject: Re: An astonishing Guy
Followup-To: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban
Reply-To: dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks)
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 04:16:27 GMT

streater@unixjr.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Tim Streater) writes:
>. Should be part of the s.c.b FAQ,
>along with Dan Archer's great aunt's maiden name.

Gertrude Cooper, I believe.
-- 
David Brooks					dbrooks@osf.org
Open Software Foundation			uunet!osf.org!dbrooks
From: guy@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: The amazing disappearing British Constitution
Date: 10 Nov 92 18:33:04 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker) writes:
>
>	The meta-laws in the UK are perfectly well written-down;  but
>they are for the most part not themselves laws [as you indeed require].
>(Some are -- eg, the laws governing who can vote.)  An example of such
>a meta-law is the one banning hybrid Bills [...]

What form does it take then?  (A genuine question!)


-- 
Guy Barry | Computer Laboratory     | Centre for Cognitive Science
          | University of Cambridge | University of Edinburgh
          | Guy.Barry@cl.cam.ac.uk  | guy@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
          | +44 (0)223 334757       | +44 (0)31 650 4413
From: wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Down with Maastricht
Date: 6 Nov 92 20:52:36 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <6250100@hpopd.pwd.hp.com>, apm@hpopd.pwd.hp.com (Andrew Merritt) writes:
> Some of the Tory MP's were complaining of excessive whipping, but I didn't
> hear any details of what convinced them to vote with the Government.
> 
It was one of those curious affairs. Labour, Plaid Cymru, the SNP and the SDLP
voted against the government because it was a effectively a confidence vote.
The Lib Dems voted with the government because it was a vote on Maastricht. The
Ulster Unionists voted against the government because it was a vote on
Maastricht. One anti-Europe Lib Dem and some Tory rebels voted against the
government because it was a vote on Maastricht. Some Tory Europhobes voted with
the government because it was effectively a confidence vote. One Tory whip
did not vote because he ran too fast through the lobby.

-- 

Stephen Wilcox             |   For Sale: Posts in British Government. Suit
wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk    |   outgoing American. Highest bids accepted.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines)
Subject: Re: Just a quick question
Originator: nickh@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<6NOV199208200941@sscvx1.ssc.gov>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:55:22 GMT

Laurence writes:

   Rich Thomas writes:

   >Could someone tell me (email please) the definition of
   >a common-law marriage in England? Thanks.

   I post in case someone disagrees with me.  A couple, of opposite sex, living
   together as man and wife - that is a euphemism for sleeping together.

No, it's a euphemism for having sex. Whether they sleep together or
not is irrelevant.

   The woman in these circumstances is legally entitled to take the
   name of the man if she wishes.

I believe that anyone is legally entitled to take any name they choose :-)

Nick Haines nickh@cmu.edu
From: wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Just a quick question
Date: 10 Nov 92 19:16:49 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <A.Grant.18.721245531@ucs.cam.ac.uk>, A.Grant@ucs.cam.ac.uk (Alasdair Grant) writes:
> In article <BxD4E7.Dtp.1@cs.cmu.edu> nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines) writes:
>>It is? In what way is `fuck' euphemistic? I thought it was
>>straight-forward, like `fart' or `shit'.
> 
> It stands for "For unnatural carnal knowledge". Like TDA and GBH.
Actually that would be an anacronym if it were the case, which it isn't. It's
derived from the Germanic word fikken (as alt.folklore.urban and
alt.english.usage readers will happily tell you.) Any more information should
be gleaned from a dictionary.

-- 

Stephen Wilcox             |   For Sale: Posts in British Government. Suit
wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk    |   outgoing American. Highest bids accepted.
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:15614 alt.folklore.urban:28058
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: The amazing disappearing British Constitution
Date: 10 Nov 1992 23:31:29 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com


In article <1992Nov10.144958.11600@maths.nott.ac.uk>, anw@maths.nott.ac.uk writes:
> 						An example of such
> a meta-law is the one banning hybrid Bills (of which, according to Urban
> Legend, the most famous was one in which some obscure new measure to do
> with sewage disposal had tacked on to it by some disgruntled clerk that
> "J Arthur Boggis of 123 Acacia Avenue, Sometown was hereby divorced from
> his wife Mildred").  Accusations of hybridicity have occasionally been
> made, and invariably result in much behind-the-scenes scurrying by party
> functionaries attempting to patch things up.

By contrast, this is fairly standard practice in the US.
It is partly behind the calls for a Presidential line item
veto.

It has lead to some pretty amazing abuses: I vaguely recall
some representatives taking routine a financial Bill that was
almost certain to pass, and then tacking on to the end
that this-and-that person was allowed to jump the immigration
queue and enter the US.

jon.
From: cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Chris Cooke)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Accent and Dialect, the politics there
Date: 12 Nov 92 17:59:37 GMT
	<1992Nov11.170505.417@gssec.bt.co.uk>
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

In article <1992Nov11.170505.417@gssec.bt.co.uk> cwilson@gssec.bt.co.uk (Colin Wilson) writes:

   The idea that speakers of the different dialects of Scots have
   difficulty understanding one another is almost totally false: in my
   activities with the Scots Language Society I encounter speakers of
   various dialects other my own, and none of us have any difficulty with
   one another. The only real exception to this is the Shetland tongue,
   which is influenced by Norse in its vocabulary and pronunciation, and
   which presents difficulties for mainlanders.

Friend of mine used to work in a shop in Buckie; he spent years trying to
understand a customer who hailed from Shetland, but never mastered the
dialect at all.  He could cope with Aberdonians, just.

He also taught me the proper response to the question "Foose noose?"
--
	-- Chris. 	cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk   (on Janet, cc@uk.ac.ed.dcs)