HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: uk.politics,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: Women in parliament
Date: 14 Apr 92 16:42:59 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAXcluster

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?
Something like 50 MPs out of 651; a similar proportion of candidates
 
> I suppose they make up at least 50% of the voters, or do some women
> refrain from voting because of their sex?
Don't know; don't think so
 
> How many female candidates were there? 
About 10% (roughly)
 
> Were there any significant differences between the parties as to the
> percentage of each gender's candidates?  
Much better for Labour than the Tories: Conservative women have families themn
enter politics, so are older; Labour women enter politics with young children
 
> Does any party in Britain use a qota system for gender representation
> the way many European environment parties do?
None of the big three, but the Labour party has a quota of one women on each
constituency shortlist, and three on its shadow cabinet (elected by the party)
 
> 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? 
Ha Ha Ha. Thatcher refused to implement any policies which would have done
this: reform of parliamentary hours and procedure for instance. The House of
Commons is still a men's club, albeit with female members.
 
> I heard that tory politicians had made outright racist statements
> about a coloured tory candidate, have similar things happened to
> female candidates?
I don't know, but to be honest it wouldn't surprise me.
 
> --Ceci, interested in comparative anti-sexism

Stephen
 
> Ps: I am not posting this to the feminism group. I think that these
> issues are too important to be tucked away in a special group. Besides
> I don't like their moderation policies.
> 
> --
> =====ceci@lysator.liu.se===========================================
> "Words of more than one syllable, not stressed on the last syllable,
> do not double the final consonant, unless it is l, when a suffix
> beginning with a vowel is added,..." From The Oxford Guide to English Usage
From: traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub)
Newsgroups: uk.politics,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Simple message
Date: 10 Apr 92 07:40:17 GMT
Organization: BT Customer Systems, Brighton, UK

In article <1992Apr9.121814.620@osf.org> sp@mirabeau.osf.fr (Simon Patience) writes:
>In article <1992Apr9.075013.15123@rtf.bt.co.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. N. Walker) writes:
>> >In article <1992Apr8.080132.8373@rtf.bt.co.uk>traub@rtf.bt.co.uk(Michael Traub) writes:
>> He has *thirty* times as many computers? *Thirty* times as many cars?
>
>Don't be stupid, You asked for examples of items he spent 30 times,
>which he gave you.
>
Did he though? Does his friend have a car worth 300,000 pounds?

>> I admit he may have thirty times as many meals in a restaurant. However
>> in case your maths is that poor, there is a lot more VAT revenue made on
>> a computer or a car than on a meal in a restaurant.
>
>Surely it depends on how much you spend on each item annually rather
>than a one off shot. People go out for meals rather more often than they
>buy a car/computer.
>
Just a tiny bit of maths will make you realise that one car is
worth 300 meals in a restaurant.

>> >>Try telling the truth?
>> >
>> >	I don't recall ever being called a liar in public before.  As an
>> >academic, my reputation is quite important to me.  Do you really want a
>> >civilised debate, or do we degenerate into slanging?
>> >
>> Whatever you prefer, just don't lie to make a point, or do you insist
>> that your friend has thirty cars?
>
>I think it was you that insisted on that. I think you should try telling
>the truth.
>
On what matter have I lied?


-- 
Michael Traub
BT Customer Systems, Brighton Systems Centre. traub@rtf.bt.co.uk
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: MAJOR WINS MAJORITY!!!
Organization: sgi
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 02:49:08 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.015102.1563@leland.Stanford.EDU>, rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) writes:
>
> Regardless of where you take your snapshot, it is incontrovertable 
> that Thatcher turned around a situation that most people in the world 
> had given up as hopeless.

Good point.   I've noticed that Americans have given up using the
UK as an example of what awful things can happen to a country.  It
was common to refer to "The British Disease" only ten years ago.
This week Time commented that compared to 1979, Major has taking 
over "A country transformed".

As a historical "what if", if Maggie hadn't taken over in 1979, 
might the West currently be sending food aid to Russia, Ukraine
and the UK?

jon.
From: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
Newsgroups: uk.politics,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Can YOU predict the election outcome? - **RESULTS**
Date: 13 Apr 92 11:53:27 GMT
Organization: City University, London

In article <1992Apr13.091821.22941@city.cs> simon@cs.city.ac.uk (Simon Brock-Gunn) writes:
>Below is a complete list of all the predictions I received of the number
>of seats each party would get in the new parliament.  Those marked with an
>asterisk were received by me *after* 10pm on 9 April, but since they were
>allegedly sent before (and since they were nowhere near correct) I have
>included them anyway.
>
>Key:  err - sum of difference between seats predicted and seats won for
>            each party
>      Con - Conservative, Lab - Labour, LD - Liberal Democrat,
>      SNP - Scottish National Party
>
>rank err   Con Lab  LD SNP  sender
>       0   336 271  20   3  (Actual Result)
> 1    45   327 302  17   5  Ian.Taylor@rcvie.co.at (Ian Taylor)
> 2    48   311 289  24   4  Philip Evans <pj_evans@csd.brispoly.ac.uk>
> 3    80   296 303  23   8  Guy.Barry@cl.cam.ac.uk
> 4    89   290 302  27   8  Paul Norris <pm3_norr@csd.brispoly.ac.uk>
> 5    96 * 290 301  33  10  per@aber.ac.uk
> 6    97 * 296 316  29   6  Stephen Wilcox <WILCOX@VAX.OXFORD.AC.UK>
> 7    98   296 321  24   7  nroworth@nl.oracle.com (Nick Roworth)
> 8   102   290 315  15  10  Nick Haines <nickh@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU>
> 9=  111   285 318  23  13  Jon Harley <J.W.Harley@newcastle.ac.uk>
> 9=  111   375 220  40   4  Lionel Tun <lionel@cs.city.ac.uk>
> 9=  117   288 288  65  10  S.H.L.G.Bisson@gdr.bath.ac.uk
>12   118   280 326  19   9  Simon Brock-Gunn <simon@cs.city.ac.uk>
>13   153   270 325  36  20  Richard Boardman <boardman@inmos.co.uk>
>14   163 * 254 334  36   5  dshone@chad.CV.NRAO.EDU (Dave Shone)
>15   239   241 257 124  29  Richard Marshall <lah014@cck.coventry.ac.uk>
>
>So the award of "Voice of the People" goes to ... drum roll ... 
>Ian.Taylor@rcvie.co.at (Ian Taylor).

Congratulations to Ian.Taylor.

However I notice that only Ian.Taylor and Lionel Tun predicted that
the Conservatives would have an outright majority. I think ranking
should reflect this, the most important consideration, and suggest
that rank is based on the accuracy of the Conservative/Labour ratio
prediction.

BTW, any opinions on why so many intellectuals could get it so wrong?
Were they brainwashed by watching too much BBC tv? How many people
actually _read_ the election manifesto's. I believe careful reading
of the manifesto's would have enabled a thinking person to accurately
predict who would get the country's vote of confidence.

--
Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889
From: czar@hardy.u.washington.edu (Nathan Clement)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Yorkshire results: specifics?
Summary: wondering if John Grogan (standing in York, Selby?) is MP
Keywords: election;yorkshire
Date: 14 Apr 92 21:16:06 GMT
Organization: University of Washington

i believe john grogan ,labour, was standing in York or Selby 
or thereabouts; anybody know if he is now MP?

is michael macgowan still MEP out of Leeds?

did Leeds United take division?

please email back  &  thanks in advance,

czar@silvae.cfr.washington.edu
From: dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Inclusion of expats in UK elections
Date: 13 Apr 92 14:41:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: osf.1992Apr13.144112.23027
Organization: Open Software Foundation

ggm@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au (George Michaelson) writes:
|> The procedure is stupid. You have to fill in a form, send one part to the
|> powers-that-be and the other to your patsy to hang onto and supply on the
|> day. They have to get it soon enough to start this process up WELL in
|> advance of polling day.

It doesn't necessarily help.  My wife and I registered as soon as we were
able, nominated a proxy, kept the registration current, told my dad how to
vote (after all these years, I've been keeping it a secret from my
parents...), and he did the right things according to what came in the mail...

And, when he sent in the ballot, he was told: "Oh, didn't we tell you?
Well, that bit about having to have the proxy vote in a week before the
election wasn't exactly accurate.  You had to have it here by noon on March
23rd.  So sorry."

As we were registered in Huntingdonshire, I doubt we would have made a
noticeable dent, though.
-- 
David Brooks				dbrooks@osf.org
Systems Engineering, OSF		uunet!osf.org!dbrooks
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:5954 soc.culture.usa:2859
From: egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk (JHenderson)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Why should Libya hand over the PanAm bombers?
Date: 9 Apr 92 13:20:55 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <1992Apr6.232851.29460@unixg.ubc.ca> buckland@ucs.ubc.ca (Tony Buckland) writes:
--
-- How about, because the UN Security Council has told them to?

I guess we were trying to find some moral reason, not one based simply on the
naked use of force.

I will advocate the handing over the ALLEGED PanAm bombers (whatever happened to the
presumption of innocence?) when Israel is asked for, and hands over, Shamir, to be
tried for his terrorist activities in post-'45 Palestine.



-- 
-jeremy henderson        | I do wonder that so brave a prince as King James 
egpv29@uk.ac.ed.castle   | should be born in so stinking a toun as Edinburgh
                         | in lousy Scotland.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,soc.culture.celtic
From: dj@ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones)
Subject: Re: Is Holohan a dweeb?
Organization: :noitazinagrO
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 18:00:48 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.083846@mark.enet.dec.com> holohan@mark.enet.dec.com (Mark Holohan) writes:
>(Lord Lloyd) writes:
>|>Ah, I wonder is there an american equivalent of "complete pillock"
>|>Now that would surely fit Mr Holohan perfectly.
>|>
>|>-Jonathan "Cymru am Byth" Lloyd
>
>  There is, we call them Lloyd
>
Oooh! Erudition! Wit!  Hyperbole!  Searing Political and Personal
attacks!  Massed assault by armies of dead sheep!  Help!

>--
>  Mark Holohan, DEC, USA        "Character is what you are in the dark" - BB
In your case, "alone" might be a good description.


-- 
||Dave Jones (dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com)    ||-------------------------------|
||Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY 14653-7300|-------------------------------|
|| If Unix is a computer system            ||-------------------------------|
|| then a pile of bricks is a house        ||-------------------------------|
From: sue@netcom.com (Sue Miller)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Emigration after the Tory win on April 9th
Date: 12 Apr 92 15:36:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.r9vjn!#.sue
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <11APR199223593597@zeus.tamu.edu> 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.

Umm, would just ONE of you crybabies tell me why it is "clear that our
democracy no longer functions properly?"  BTW, the UK is not a democracy.
Neither is the USA.  Disregarding your lack of understanding of the
political systems involved, we'll move on.  Presumably you mean that
because the side you backed in the election didn't win, the process
is inherently flawed.  Interesting reasoning.  Are you claiming
election fraud?  
 
>Is this the start of another brain drain?

When did the last one stop?  People move around, and for engineers
(don't know much about other professions) the salaries here are
very good.  So is the weather.  None of the expats I know are here
for political reasons. :-)

>I myself want to leave as soon as my degree is over, unless J.Major is
>substantially different to his first shot at the top.

Yep, as soon as the state pays for your education.  I'm not saying
that you have to stay and try to put something back into the country
but you should at least acknowledge what it (read: all the taxpayers
there) has done for you.  

>Surely this is a hollow win for the Tories if everyone who didn't vote
>for them is so sick of it all that they want to leave?

You can speak for yourself only.  I don't think we'll see a mass exodus.
People who want to move will move.  

>So who else is for bailing out before the rats drag down the ship of state?
>

Sigh.
From: hugh@sci.kun.nl (Hugh Osborne)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Emigration after the Tory win on April 9th
Date: 13 Apr 92 13:59:56 GMT
Organization: University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands

In <r9vjn!#.sue@netcom.com> sue@netcom.com (Sue Miller) writes:

>In article <11APR199223593597@zeus.tamu.edu> pac9897@zeus.tamu.edu (SO MUCH FOR DEMOCRACY IN BRITAIN) writes:
>>become clear that our democracy no longer functions properly.

>Umm, would just ONE of you crybabies tell me why it is "clear that our
>democracy no longer functions properly?"

Just possibly this. By the time the next elections roll around the United 
Kingdom will have been governed for almost twenty years by a party that
never received a majority of the votes in a general election.  In fact, I
believe that hardly any (post-war) government achieved a majority vote, so
if you want to complain about the statement, question the words "democracy"
(as you did) and the phrase "no longer" which should read "never did".
Calling people "crybabies" doesn't seem a useful contribution to the
discussion.
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:6317 alt.society.civil-liberty:3427
From: rjc@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: British Bill: of Rights? of Goods?
Date: 13 Apr 92 19:46:05 GMT
	<1992Apr12.214458.16901@yang.earlham.edu>
Organization: Centre for Speech Technology Research

In article <1992Apr12.214458.16901@yang.earlham.edu>, Allen Smith (as) writes:

as> Admittedly, currently Supreme Court Justices, etc. are being
as> appointed by politicians who would prefer no civil liberties
as> whatsoever. The judges are ruling against civil liberties whenever
as> they can. However, if some Justices willing to uphold their oaths
as> were appointed, this would preserve liberties far longer than a
as> parlimentary election of some good politicians. 

This is a good point, however it is not one which supports having a
written constitution, it supports having an independent judicery who
are appointed for life. 

The problem which I see with a US style constitution is that it gives
those judges (and hence those who appoint them) a way of claiming
legitimacy for any rights violation they can come up with. All they
have to do is claim to have found it as an interpretation of the
constitution. A frightening number of people seem to accept such
arguments (eg, look at all the Usenet threads which degenerate into
constitutional word sifting rather than discussing the issues -- the
pro and anti gun control arguments for example).

I really, really, like the fact that the House of Lords could find a
man guilty of raping his wife dispite the fact that it is clearly not
illegal.

The US constitution is archetecture, the British constitution is
choreography. 

--
rjc@cogsci.ed.ac.uk		Pretentious metaphores a speciality.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft)
Subject: Re: MAJOR WINS MAJORITY!!!
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 20:10:00 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.095502.8241@bristol.ac.uk> P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee) writes:
>
>I've noticed the world situation.  The point is that the UK has been
>slipping faster than most of the (industrialized, at least) world.
>Thirteen years ago, the UK was near the top of most comparative EEC
>tables; now it's near the bottom.  Maybe the whole world *is* going to
>hell in a handbasket, but that doesn't mean that the UK needs to lead
>the way.

Total crap.  This was true up until 1979.  Britain's productivity has
since grown faster than e.g. France, Germany.  See the Economist.

RNA




Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,rec.arts.books
From: sue@netcom.com (Sue Miller)
Subject: Re: ENGLISH AS SHE IS SPOKE
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 92 18:34:15 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

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.

You are undoubtedly pals with the other poster who conjectured
that British farming methods are probably unchanged from the 14th
century.  They've got a pretty large selection of fizzy drinks over
the pond, most of what we've got here plus their own varieties.  
FYI there are a lot of people here in the USofA who refer to all
carbonated beverages as "cokes", so the theory is hogwash
anyway even if it were true that the UK has fewer types of soda
available.
From: simon@cs.city.ac.uk (Simon Brock-Gunn)
Newsgroups: uk.politics,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Can YOU predict the election outcome? - **RESULTS**
Date: 13 Apr 92 13:06:49 GMT
Organization: City University, London

In article <1992Apr13.115327.25550@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) 
writes:

>Congratulations to Ian.Taylor.
>
>However I notice that only Ian.Taylor and Lionel Tun predicted that
                                           ^^^^^^^^^^
Isn't this you, Lionel?  I think you should declare your interest here.
Or are you getting into practice for running as a Tory MP in the next 
election?

>the Conservatives would have an outright majority. I think ranking
>should reflect this, the most important consideration, and suggest
>that rank is based on the accuracy of the Conservative/Labour ratio
>prediction.

So go ahead, Lionel.  Be my guest.  You have the figures and plenty of
time to number-crunch.  If you think up enough different ways of
presenting the data you might even find one which makes you come out on
top (It'll give you plenty of practice for when you get into office and
need to compile the unemployment statistics).

>BTW, any opinions on why so many intellectuals could get it so wrong?
>Were they brainwashed by watching too much BBC tv? How many people
>actually _read_ the election manifesto's. I believe careful reading

How many people actually _know_ that there's no apostrophe in
"manifestos"?

>of the manifesto's would have enabled a thinking person to accurately
>predict who would get the country's vote of confidence.

It seems that a hell of a lot of people in this country couldn't even
predict how they were going to vote themselves.  Please explain how you
could.

==============================================================================
|| Simon A. Brock-Gunn | Computer Science Dept. | You can't have everything ||
|| simon@cs.city.ac.uk | City University, Nort- | - where would you put it? ||
|| Tel +44 71 477 8000 | hampton Square, London |---------------------------||
|| Fax +44 71 250 0837 | EC1V 0HB, England, UK. |   (THIS SPACE FOR RENT)   ||
==============================================================================
Newsgroups: uk.politics,soc.culture.british
From: livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: Why wait 5 years?
Organization: sgi
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 22:08:55 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.152657.1014@rdg.dec.com>, potter@movies.enet.dec.com (Alan T Potter) writes:
|> 
|> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes...
|> >Am I the only one who is beginning to think that whatever the Scots
|> >claim to want, in practice they act so as to minimize achieving it,
|> >and to maximise the opportunity to whinge afterwards.
|> 
|> Jon,
|> 
|> I think that you confuse the Scots (the people who make up the populace 
|> of that part of Britain known as Scotland) with the loudmouths who think 
|> that they represent the scots when, in fact, they represent nobody.

Yes and no.   I come from a Scottish family, and I know that my relatives
will happily rant on fifty one weeks of the year about how the only 
problem with Scotland is the English, and Independence is the only answer, 
and what about William Wallace, and all that,  and then when the 
election comes around, their canny instincts take over, and they vote
for stability and no change.

I think that yearning for "freedom" and then voting against it is the
nearest thing to entertainment these good folks can allow themselves.

|> 
|> I think that I would be rather insulted if you associated me with 
|> Alex Salmond just because I am from Scotland.  And remember, the 
|> person who started this whole "let weak Scots die so as to further 
|> scottish independence" thread was in fact from Manchester.

My apologies for loose phrasing.     I'm just slightly amazed that
less than one week after Scots did not vote for the SNP in large
numbers, people are already talking as if Scotland is some oppressed
third world country where poeple are not allowed to vote for what
they want.

jon.
From: arfg9274@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Audrey R. Forster)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Snooker followers out there?
Summary: Are there any snooker followers out there that like to talk about it?
Keywords: Snooker, fans,
Date: 7 Apr 92 22:27:11 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

Given this recent talk about the snooker break record, I wonder how many
folks out there are snooker fans (American lingo).  I fell in love with
watching it on television when I lived in Scotland ('79-'81).  It was
the time of the fading of Hurricane Higgins, the rise of Steve Davis (who
I could never like for some reason) and the continuing talents of the likes
of Terry Griffiths, Doug Mountjoy, Ray Reardon, Dennis Taylor, and some 
others whose names escape me. Well, 10 years later I've nearly completed my
withdrawl from the scene.  I still wonder from time to time what's going on
in the snooker world -- who's up, who's down, who hasn't been heard from
in ages...

Please post or email (whichever seems more appropriate; I don't know - but
this subject is certainly culture.british).  Thanks for any info.



-Audrey Forster					  arfg9274@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu

Anything can be found in a .sig, proof is left as an exercise to the reader.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,soc.culture.canada,misc.forsale
From: perwaiz@engrg.uwo.ca (Mr. Jamshed Perwaiz)
Subject: RETURN AIR TICKET TO LONDON,ENGLAND
Organization: University of Western Ontario, London
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 05:31:46 GMT
Originator: perwaiz@engrg.uwo.ca

AIR TICKET TO LONDON, ENGLAND.

FLY FROM TORONTO, OTTAWA, HALIFAX OR VANCOUVER.

male or female.  RETURN TICKET.

Can be used anytime before JULY 1, 1992

Contact me ASAP.

Jamshed Perwaiz
---------------------------------
e-mail: perwaiz@engrg.uwo.ca
phone: 519-661-2111 ext 8314 (leave message)
FAX:   519-661-3020

Newsgroups: soc.culture.british