HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chris@suite.sw.oz.au (Chris Maltby)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.politics.british
Subject: Re: Rampant paranoia (was Voting slips: what happens to them,DANGER!)
Date: 15 Apr 92 01:49:11 GMT
Organization: Softway Pty Ltd

In <92098.123935EZ28@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK> EY28@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK writes:

>Interesting stuff this voting slip scam.

And it seems a little unnecessary to boot!

>Anyone care to comment how the introduction of PR in whatever form would
>interfere with this alleged tracing of votes?

>My guess is it would make the task somewhat harder. Now lets see which
>parties are totally against PR.........

Not at all. Having counted Hare-Clarke proportional-preferential ballots,
the end result is about 1 zillion bundles of papers, but ALL of them are
marked with which candidate they have come from (by surplus or elimination)
and which candidate they are going to. You could still trace an individual
paper if you had some way to identify it.

However, in Australia, there is a clause in the Electoral Act which makes
it an offence for anyone to attempt to determine how anyone else may have
voted. The ballot papers are only initialled by the polling clerk when they
are handed to you (no initial is counted as informal). The initials are
used only to tally up the number of papers issued by each clerk. If you
want to vote several times, you can go to a number of booths and get
marked off the rolls at each - though you will get a please explain letter
later. You can explain by saying that you have no idea how it happened -
it must have been someone from a political party trying to rig the election.

>Never mind the Ballots, here comes the rest of your life!

Quite.
-- 
Chris Maltby - Softway Pty Ltd	(chris@softway.sw.oz.au)

PHONE:	+61-2-698-2322		UUCP:		uunet!softway.sw.oz.au!chris
FAX:	+61-2-699-9174		INTERNET:	chris@softway.sw.oz.au
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:5959 soc.culture.usa:2863
From: mkrey@Ingres.COM (MIKE KREY)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Why should Libya hand over the PanAm bombers?
Summary: UN SEC, a joke..
Date: 9 Apr 92 14:10:14 GMT
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <NICKH.92Apr7151337@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU>, nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick  writes...
>In article <1992Apr7.180919.8260@unixg.ubc.ca> buckland@ucs.ubc.ca (Tony Buckland) writes:
> 
>   In article <1992Apr7.124654.133@pony.Ingres.COM> mkrey@Ingres.COM (MICHAEL KREY) writes:
>   >In article <1992Apr6.232851.29460@unixg.ubc.ca>, buckland@ucs.ubc.ca (Tony  writes...
>   >> How about, because the UN Security Council has told them to?
>   >HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!  Why not say, because the Guam foreign minister 
>   >said so, or because Nancy Reagan said so??????  Same bloody thing.... 
> 
>    I hope this won't come as too much of a shock, but last year there
>    was a substantial, if short, war fought in the Persian Gulf.  It
>    established a new principle in world affairs, that the SC can issue
>    enforceable resolutions, particularly if it seems likely to be able
>    successfully to call on the US to carry the brunt of the effort of
>    enforcing.
> 
>..... the smell of petrol drifts across the net ... the faint but
>unmistable sound of a striking match ...
> 
>Last year there was a substantial massacre carried out in the Persian
>Gulf. It established a new principle in world affairs, that the US can
>bully the UN into passing resolutions against anybody it doesn't like,
>(while vetoing or ignoring any resolutions against allies), and
>`enforce' those resolutions to the extent of working against efforts
>for peace in the interim.
> 


Exactly, hence my statement about taking the UN SEC Council seriously.
It is dominated by the US and its puppets, and therefore can hardly make 
an 'unbiased' decision.  If America needs a licence to kill, the UN will 
supply it.  A 'New principle in world affairs' ??  Sounds like a little 
too much intake of 'Stormin Norman' interviews on on the tele.  Was it 
sucessful?? Only Military targets were hit??  Civialians weren't 
targeted?  Prisoners were treated humanely??  Yeah, right!!  Very 
sucessful.



************************************************************************
Mike Krey
INGRES UK			SELECT DISCLAIMER				
mkrey@ingres.com		FROM DISCLAIMERS
+44 0734 496564			WHERE DISCLAIMER_TYPE = 'ORIGNAL';
				(0 ROWS RETRIEVED)
***********************************************************************
From: albion@bnr.ca (Alan Buchanan)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Rampant paranoia (was Voting slips: what happens to them,DANGER!)
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:00:23 GMT
Reply-To: alanbu@bnr.ca
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd, Ottawa
Originator: albion@bcrks63


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.  Your name
> has a number next to it.  You are given a voting form with that
> number on it.  Therefore it is trivially easy to find out how you
> voted.  Wht we Brits have stood for this blatant disregard for
> democracy for so long never fails to surprise me. 

This has nothing to do with democracy. If we all believed in democracy, 
the secret ballot would be anti-democratic as we should reveal our
opinion and hold ourselves accountable.

The issue is one of personal freedom. If some people are willing to indulge
in intimidation and coercion then the public has the right to be protected.

Inevitably there must then be some compromise of freedom of information
over privacy and vice versa. 

In my opinion it is ludicrous to believe that an individual's voting 
patterns will have much importance to majority governments who could more
easily gather information on individuals by a more direct means.

Given our likely opinion on our personal influence on the electing of
governments I would not be surprised if there was a minority of people who
voted for the extremes just for the hell of it. If 100 people vote for the 
'hell on earth' party candidate, then each voter can feel more 'special'
than one of the 10,000 who voted 'middle of the road'.

These people would not necessarily be irresponsible nor politically
troublesome but just hold a different sense of proportion.

If I were an anti-democratic anarchist, I probably would not vote.

Remember, in real life there are many decent honest people for whom a change
of government is the least of their worries and such niceties of democracy
would leave them unmoved.




                            Alan


--
Alan Buchanan       Bell-Northern Research, Ltd       Ph.: (613) 763-2750
Silicon Design      P.O. Box 3511, Station C          Fax: (613) 763-3970
  Methods           Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1Y 4H7  

alanbu@bnr.ca        

        Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire.
                         - William Butler Yeats
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: ggm@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au (George Michaelson)
Subject: Re: Inclusion of expats in UK elections
Organization: Prentice Centre, University of Queensland
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 01:27:41 GMT

jlloyd@cc.uow.edu.au (Jonathan Lloyd) writes:
>I think when the votes from expats are actually singled out, we will find
>that only a fraction of those entitled could be bothered to make the effort.

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. Counting of ex-pat votes begins before polling day.

You should simply have to front up to the embassy/consulate with passport
and get a postal-vote form or lodge your vote. As far as I know, thats
how ex-pat Aussies do it in Britain. 

-George
--
                         George Michaelson
G.Michaelson@cc.uq.oz.au The Prentice Centre      | There's no  market for
                         University of Queensland | hippos in Philadelphia
Phone: +61 7 365 4079    QLD Australia 4072       |          -Bertold Brecht
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks)
Subject: Re: News from Ambridge (was Re: Gas stoves)
Followup-To: soc.culture.british
Reply-To: dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks)
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 03:50:20 GMT

ceci@lysator.liu.se (Ceci Henningsson) writes:
>Could someone please explain this to me and all the other people who
>are totally at a loss about what this is all about? Some kind of a
>TV-series is my guess. It seems to have more to do with
>soc*culture*british than the political discussions.

It's a radio soap opera.  And Citizen Kane is a black and white film.  It
started on Whit Monday, May 29, 1950, and the sole purpose was to use
fiction provide a sugar coating to otherwise dull farming information and
propaganda that the MinAg wanted to put out.  The setting is a farming
community, Ambridge, a village of about 360, and the action rarely moves
outside the village and its surrounding fields.  The Archers are the
central family.

But it very soon became insanely popular among people who wouldn't know a
seed drill from a hole in the ground.  The great strength is in the
characterizations: the people are drawn plausibly and with depth and
detail, and it's strongly family oriented.  Everything is done in
conversation: there are few sound effects beyond the occasional cow and
some outdoor ambient.

It's presented in daily 15-minute chunks (with a lightly edited repeat on
Sundays).  One of my earliest memories is sitting down with my grandmother
at her house after tea, and her saying "Hark!" as the theme music began.

On 22 September 1955, Independent Television started: the first competition
to BBC TV.  That evening, the newly wed Grace Archer was killed in a stable
fire, trying to rescue some horses (one of the two occasions they did not
run the theme music at the end; quiz: what was the controversy surrounding
the other?).  Of course, you can guess how many people were talking about,
or the least bit interested in, ITV the next morning.  It came as a bit of
a shock to the actress, too; she had a few hours notice.

And finally, for your delight, the opening lines of the script.  Yes,
Norman Painting played Phil in Episode 1.

ANNOUNCER: Tonight Midland Region has pleasure in bringing to the air
	its new farming family...

	THEME MUSIC

	We present The Archers, of Wimberton Farm, on the fringe of
	the village of Ambridge.

	FADE MUSIC; FADE IN ODD FARM NOISES.  COW MOOING (OFF MIKE!)

DAN:	Well Simon.  What d'you think?

SIMON:	Ah well - 'er might and 'er mightn't.

DAN:	I know *that* - but what do you *think*.

And so on, for 42 glorious years.
-- 
400 72 translate/L{lineto}def/C{curveto}def 0 0 moveto 0 24 L 9 24 10 0 5 0 C
18 14 L 21 -6 23 0 27 16 C 32 0 L 37 0 45 12 45 24 C 45 0 L 45 24 L 54 22 50 20
46 10 C 59 9 51 6 49 0 C 58 10 66 -4 78 4 C 87 20 L 93 0 99 3 104 6 C 108 0 L
2 setlinejoin stroke showpage (David Brooks, Open Software Foundation) pop
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,soc.culture.usa
From: jovanovic-nick@CS.YALE.EDU (Nick Jovanovic)
Subject: Re: Why should Libya hand over the PanAm bombers?
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 20:22:17 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.180919.8260@unixg.ubc.ca> buckland@ucs.ubc.ca (Tony Buckland) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.124654.133@pony.Ingres.COM> mkrey@Ingres.COM (MICHAEL KREY) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr6.232851.29460@unixg.ubc.ca>, buckland@ucs.ubc.ca (Tony  writes...
>>> How about, because the UN Security Council has told them to?
>>HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!  Why not say, because the Guam foreign minister 
>>said so, or because Nancy Reagan said so??????  Same bloody thing.... 
>
> I hope this won't come as too much of a shock, but last year there
> was a substantial, if short, war fought in the Persian Gulf.  It
> established a new principle in world affairs, that the SC can issue
> enforceable resolutions, particularly if it seems likely to be able
> successfully to call on the US to carry the brunt of the effort of
> enforcing.


But that didn't mean it was the right thing to do.  If the SC persists
in laying the groundwork for US aggression, the UN will certainly  
become a symbol of the most evil empire yet to scourge the planet.

If the SC wants to get the world behind the UN, they should dissolve
all permanent memberships in the SC to democratize UN processes.

If the New World Order keeps forming along present lines, we have some
real carnage to look forward to because at some point the world will
just say NO to the US and the UN.

-Nick Jovanovic







Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: francis@oas.stanford.edu (Francis Muir)
Subject: Re: ENGLISH AS SHE IS SPOKE
Organization: Stanford Exploration Project
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 17:56:16 GMT

Prince Lev of the Domovoi writes on tonic tipples:

	Gin and tonic, yes. But the otherdrink mentioned is a vodka tonic. 
	No and is needed.

You are half right, but Gin and Tonic is properly (my authority is a
number of pleasant visits to the Bar at Raffles'. Now refurbished.
Pity in a way. The sight of Punkah Wallahs doing their thing is very
relaxing) pronounced Gin 'n Tonic, and then elipsis takes over to give 
GinnTonic. I suspect that Vodka Tonic followed this. BTW, am I the only 
person who calls it Wodky?

Shalomski

Francis Muir

francis@sep.stanford.edu

Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: sp@mirabeau.osf.fr (Simon Patience)
Subject: Re: Thoughts on Election Results
Reply-To: sp@mirabeau.osf.fr (Simon Patience)
Organization: OSF Research Institute
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 15:10:24 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.140104.164652@cs.cmu.edu>, goddard+@cs.cmu.edu
(Nigel Goddard) writes:
> Woe unto us!  I spent the evening listening to the results on 
> the World Service with a group of fellow Brits.  Stunned disbelief,
> followed by gnashing of teeth.

I personally breathed a sigh of relief, even it wasn't my first choice result.

>  One woman announced she is no longer British.

That's just silly.

> Those who had thought of returning from exile
> will remain abroad.  Those who had thought they were abroad
> temporarily will reconsider.

And I'm sure you will find a similar number of people, maybe more, who
feel precisely the opposite (eg me).

Simon.

  Simon Patience
  Open Software Foundation			Phone: +33-76-63-48-72
  Research Institute				FAX:   +33-76-51-05-32
  2 Avenue De Vignate				Email: sp@gr.osf.org
  38610 Gieres, France				       uunet!gr.osf.org!sp
From: smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: MAJOR WINS MAJORITY!!!
Date: 13 Apr 92 10:29:32 GMT
Reply-To: P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Organization: University of Bristol

In article <1992Apr13.073340.16687@osf.org> sp@mirabeau.osf.fr (Simon Patience) writes:
>This is the thing that pisses me off most about the Tories. For someone
>on twice average earnings (and above) Britain has the highest income tax
>rate in Europe. So much for incentives for entrepreneurs.

On the other other hand, another recent survey (hate doing this,
because I don't remember where I saw it, probably the Observer)
indicated that top earners over here are now doing very well, thanks,
by comparison with other European countries.

Reason being that their relative salary levels were set when income
taxes were even higher -- on the grounds that 'to stay competitive, we
have to make sure their take-home is comparable to that in other
countries, so since we've got high taxes we've got to give them huge
gross incomes' -- and that when the top tax levels were drastically
lowered, their salaries didn't begin to drift downwards to reflect
this.  'Mid-level entrepreneurs', small businessmen, that sort of
thing, are certainly suffering, but the higher-level ones certainly
aren't.

-- 
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: traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,uk.politics
Subject: Re: election 92: RESULTS OF FASCIST PARTY
Date: 16 Apr 92 10:40:10 GMT
Organization: BT Customer Systems, Brighton, UK

In article <1992Apr15.141611.24566@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
>From: w.p.coyne@newcastle.ac.uk
>>Looking at the summary of the election results I noticed that both
>>the National Front and the British national Party had candidates.
>>He is one result. does anyone know the number of candidates they had
>>and their best and worse vote
>>Darlington: 55,255 votes:
>>         Dr Donald Clarke (BNP) 355.
>
>They obtained over a thousand votes in both of the two
>constituencies (Bow & Poplar, Bethnal Green & Stepney) which
>make up Tower Hamlets borough, an area where there has been a
>lot of recent immigration from Bangladesh.
>
>Matthew Huntbach

In that case find the two thousand people involved and send them
to Bangladesh. That way they might learn a bit of tolerance towards
their fellow humans.





-- 
Michael Traub
BT Customer Systems, Brighton Systems Centre. traub@rtf.bt.co.uk
From: livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: British Bill: of Rights? of Goods?
Date: 14 Apr 92 05:15:14 GMT
Organization: sgi

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).

|> (besides fear of riots).  

That depends on the circumstances.   During the Second World War,
they did extend the life of Parliament.

|> Surely, the government couldn't just unilaterally declare that 
|> elections would henceforth be held every 7 years or that the 
|> incumbent party could put a "lock" on a hundred constituencies 
|> of its choice, or could they?   And if they could not do this, 
|> then what would be the appropriate mechanism for amending the 
|> election rules?

The Government does do things unilaterally.  It declares States
of Emergency, for example.  Now tell me the US Government never
does things unilaterally.

jon.
From: gray@rz-berlin.mpg.de
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Budmouth
Date: 9 Apr 92 10:56:05 +0100
Organization: Rechenzentrum MPG Berlin

In article <1992Apr7.155158.28454@rdg.dec.com>,
 preece@sbpexe.enet.dec.com (Ian Preece) writes:
 
> In article <174@bazooka.Altos.COM>, cbenson@bazooka.Altos.COM
> (Christopher Benson) writes:
>>
>>Wessex itself will probably not be found on modern maps,
>>but refers to Dorset, Wiltshire and bits of Berkshire, Devon.
>>
> Cough, splutter, choke !!!
> "Berkshire, Devon" ???????
> Excuuuuuse me, but Berks and Devon are a long way apart !
> 
> I think the old Kingdom of Wessex may have included some or all of what 
> we now know as Hampshire, too.  In fact, wasn't Winchester the old capital?

  I missed some of the earlier posts in this thread, so toast me if I am
teaching the net the noble art of egg-sucking, but.....

  Don't confuse Hardy's Wessex (spelt W-e-s-s-e-x) and the ancient Kingdom
of Wessex (spelt W-e-s-s-e-x so they're easy to differentiate).  The former
is based on the latter but is really only a subset.

  The Kingdom of Wessex was one of the three Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms into which
present day England was divided, the other two were Mercia (the midlands) and
Northumbria.  Later (and I'm afraid I've forgotten the exact dates, but it all
took place between the Romans leaving and the Normans taking over - pester me
if you really want to know) Northumbria and Mercia were overrun by vikings and
became the Danelaw.  It was at about this time that Alfred burnt his cakes and
paid the Danegeld, which as all god-fearing englishmen know, one shouldn't do.
So this Wessex was almost everything south of a line running west from the 
Wash.

  Hardy's Wessex is mostly Dorset, with bits of Wiltshire, Devon and Hampshire
thrown in round the edges.  Most of the made up towns are modelled on Dorset
towns, and the Penguin Classics versions of Hardy's wessex novels include a
useful map showing where everything is.  I think that Budmouth is a combination
of Sidmouth and Budleigh-Salterton, both small towns on the South Coast.

  Sorry about the vagueness, but most of my books are in store so I can only
pontificate from memory.  If you want a treat investigate both sorts of
Wessex.  Hardy's writing is magical, and the history of Britain pre-conquest
is fascinating.  Examples?  The most sensuous and involving piece of writing
I've ever read is the Swordplay scene from Far From the Madding Crowd.  Some
of the most beautiful art ever produced in Britain is in the Lindisfarne
Gospels.  Go See.

  Struan
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: david@guadet.gr.osf.org (David George)
Subject: Re: The Decline of Britain (was Re: Great Britain as a malfunctioning democracy)
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 15:26:59 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.101803@axion.bt.co.uk> ravis@axion.bt.co.uk (Richard  
Avis) writes:
> 
> |> Proportional representation sounds like a
> |> good idea but it had led to very unstable governments in countries like 
> |> .... Italy.

Hmmm sounds like you've been listening to that nice Mr. Baker.

Up to the recent election Italy has had 50 years of Christian Democrat  
dominated govt. which has been credited with economic reform and defeating Red  
Brigade terrorism.  According to Paul Smee (he was going to dig out some  
figures) they're even ahead of Britain economically ! 

David.
From: J.W.Harley@newcastle.ac.uk (Jon Harley)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: political parties
Date: 13 Apr 92 13:40:26 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:

>From: francis@oas.stanford.edu (Francis Muir)
>>But there are two parties only; that is the principal result tonight.
>>The LibDems were wiped out. Most of their votes went to Labour, although
>>the Conservatives picked up a few.
>
>The LibDems were not wiped out. They got 17% of the vote, which
>was at the lower end of the support the polls were giving them.
>I think they badly messed up the last week of the campaign
>(mainly due to Paddy Ashdown's ego-tripping) resulting in a

So why is there no talk of his resigning? Even David+David, who at the
time were said to have been a mess, got the Alliance 21% or so of the
national vote. If Paddy, and a united LibDem party, can't even manage
that, the centre is in a *real* mess.

>crucial 2-3% of the vote going from Lib-Dem to Tory. This was
>enough to boost the Tories in the Lab-Con marginal seats and keep
>them ahead of Labour, and deny the LibDems themselves any gains
>from the Conservatives.

Apart from Bath, of course :-)

Summary: once again, the LibDems have split the opposition vote
sufficiently to keep the government in.

> Nevertheless, there are still large
>parts of the country where the LibDems remain the major
>opposition party to the Conservatives.

But there are fewer constituencies where the LibDems came 2nd this
time, than where they came 2nd in 1987.


/jon
   _________________________________________________________________
  / -- Jonathan Harley  ____   One cannot be precise and           //    //  //
 / J.W.Harley@ncl.ac.uk \bi/  still be pure.      --Marc Chagall  // // //////
/_x8504_____B2t+w-g+svrp \/ __________________________________///////////  //