HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jim@cs.strath.ac.uk (Jim Reid)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Privatisation snippets
Date: 15 Oct 92 17:25:33 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Strathclyde Univ., Glasgow, Scotland.
In-reply-to: david@postman.gr.osf.org's message of 15 Oct 92 12:16:09 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.121609.8955@osf.org> david@postman.gr.osf.org (David George) writes:

   ... but the Govt. also managed to get shot of that Albatross called the
   Austin-Rover group to the self same BAe.

   Taxpayers 1, BAe shareholders --- 0.5

Yes, but onmly after billions had been pumped into BL/Rover to pay for
new plant, the development of new models and the wholesale
restructuring of the company. And after that, BAe got Rover for less
than it was worth: Honda and Ford would have paid more if they were
allowed to bid. The government rejected their offers because they
didn't want the embarrassment of Britain not having a British owned
volume(?) car manufacturer.

Taxpayers 1, BAe shareholders 3 (after extra time).

   You see the world isn't so black and white as you'll'd paint it,
   but then being at Uni. you can be excused for not having seen too
   much of it.

The only tower at this University is an ugly 1960's concrete
monstrosity that I have to work in. There's no trace of ivory. :-)

		Jim
From: fofp@castle.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Privatisation snippets
Date: 13 Oct 92 14:15:24 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:

>We must also take into account VAT
>rises, which hit the poorest, who spend more of their income on VATable goods
>than the richest.

Why is this? Food is VAT exempt (unless you eat out) and food must
surely take up a higher fraction of the incomes of the poor. What is it
that the rich are buying that's VAT exempt?

>I hope, M, that you will now have the grace to admit that the government's
>privatisations were not aimed at increasing the wealth of those whose wealth
>needs increasing, but rather at increasing the wealth of those who might
>conceivably vote Tory, particularly if they've just recieved a large hand-out
>from teh government.

Yes, I'm quite happy to make it known that I believe that one reason for
the privatisation programme was that opinion polls had indicated that
people with shares were more likely to vote Tory. Therefore, from the
Tories point of view, increasing the number of people with shares was A
Good Thing.

This really gives me "grace"? :-)

A quick question though: do you folks that oppose the privatisations
here, also oppose them in Russia? I don't have details (though I'm sure
someone here will inform us) but it looks like they are simply giving
everyone shares in things and saying "on you go mate, now you own it."
Is this a fair way to do things? I kinda like the idea myself.

FoFP
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:13884 rec.motorcycles:35500
From: czw70@ccc.amdahl.com (CA Whitfield)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,rec.motorcycles
Subject: Re: Know someone at Triumph or Norton???
Date: 8 Oct 92 11:33:16 GMT
Reply-To: czw70@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (CA Whitfield)
Organization: Amdahl UK

In article <1992Oct6.182924.2090@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, klinger@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Jorg Klinger) writes:
>> In <SES.92Oct6115651@cmns-sun.think.com> ses@cmns-sun.think.com (Simon Edward Spero) writes:

>>> ---stuff about how good the new Triumph effort is deleted---
>> 
>> Funny, I used to ride a Bonnie for 8 years. I ride a Jap bike now but
>> still can't bring myself to call these new ones Triumphs. There is
>> absolutely nothing Triumph to these things except the logo.
>>
Quite true, and Mr Bloor would have agreed with you.  When he started out
he made it quite plain that he was NOT targetting Triumph owners or
enthusiasts.  He wanted to use a name that people would associate with
a British motorcycle (although how this association was supposed to
convince potential customers that the new models were any good is any-
body's guess).

>> It's a rip-off of an old, no, legendary name.
>>
Oh no it isn't.  Despite Bloor's expectations of widespread rejection
by Trumpophiles his customer base boasts a high proportion of current
and previous Triumph owners.  My own personal feelings are that any
British marque building modern, quality bikes in quantity and selling
them to a drooling public is something to be proud of (I was born in 1962
so this is the first time I've had a local brand to be geniunely impressed
by).  The clowns who built those decrepit twins in the seventies should,
perhaps, feel a little luckythat their marque was chosen ;-)
Bloor's Triumphs (aptly named) are the best thing to happen to the British
bike industry since the war, and you'd better believe it.  Now, if they'd
just lop another cylinder off that 900 triple...
CAW
--
  >>>  Charlie Whitfield               czw70@juts.ccc.amdahl.com  <<<
  >>>  Tommies on Tour    -    Sports Touring Without Compromise  <<<
  >>>                                        DoD#0526   ToT#0002  <<<
From: fofp@castle.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Names of naughty politicians
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:15:28 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

Teresa Gorman? (Can't count under 30 ;-)

Wasn't there a King who had to resign? Something about an American
divorcee?

FoFP
From: smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Privatisation snippets
Date: 12 Oct 92 09:15:01 GMT
Reply-To: P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Organization: University of Bristol

In article <1992Oct9.063140.19176@osf.org> sp@osf.org (Simon Patience) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.111649.6689@bristol.ac.uk>, smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee) writes:
>> Finally -- It occurs to me that no one has yet mentioned what I see as
>> the only strong argument against government ownership of industry, and
>> that is the fact (and method) of the privatisations themselves.  Any
>> sensible private company that wanted to dispose of bits of itself would
>> KEEP the profitable bits, and flog off the unprofitable ones --
>> precisely the reverse of government methodology. 
>
>Ummm, have you read what Sears is doing at the moment? (Selling its
>profitable financial service side and keeping its unprofitable retail
>side, if you hadn't heard).

Haven't heard that bit.  I have heard about them closing some hundreds
of their high-street shoe shops.

-- 
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: wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Privatisation snippets
Date: 12 Oct 92 11:52:36 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <26760@castle.ed.ac.uk>, fofp@castle.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes) writes:
> -That's all very well if you have the money to buy them back.
> -Yes, I am sure you will argue that you do have the money in the
> -form of the having to pay less tax. That argument doesn't hold
> -though when the proceeds of privatisation were used only to
> -reduce some people's taxes (the rich of course).
> 
> Well, the last tax cut was on the basic rate. And don't forget that
> mortgage tax relief was abolished at the higher rate. Your statement
> just doesn7t hold water here :-)
> 
Think again. To buy privatisation shares you need at least 300 pounds of ready
cash, or the security on which to borrow 300 pounds at non-crippling rates.
That already cuts out the poorest, the people with most to lose from a private
monopoly uncontrolled by government conscience. To put this figure into
perspective, as a research student I am not one of the poorest in this country;
I am actually quite well off, but 300 pounds represents my entire income for
about three weeks.

The recent income tax cut for the bottom bracket was a cut of 5% on your first
1000 pounds of taxable income: a grand total of 50 pounds per year, or less
than 1 pound a week. In comparison cutting the top rate of tax from 60 to 40
percent was a cut of 20% on anything over 30,000 (or thereabouts---correct me,
someone.) For someone on 33,000---a fairly modest professional salary---that is
an extra 600 pounds a year gratis. We must also take into account VAT
rises, which hit the poorest, who spend more of their income on VATable goods
than the richest.

Now mortgage tax relief only ever affected anyone who owned a house. In the
south-east than means anyone with a salary of 20,000 or thereabouts. Again,
these are not the sort of people to worry unduly at the changes introduced by a
private monopoly.

I hope, M, that you will now have the grace to admit that the government's
privatisations were not aimed at increasing the wealth of those whose wealth
needs increasing, but rather at increasing the wealth of those who might
conceivably vote Tory, particularly if they've just recieved a large hand-out
from teh government.

-- 

Stephen Wilcox             |   Remember what happened to the dinosaurs!
wilcox@maths.oxford.ac.uk  |    I did---and look what happened to me.
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:14206 soc.culture.celtic:6839
From: ulick@beethoven.helios.nd.edu (Ulick Stafford)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: Irish Rejects Associated (IRA)
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:27:39 GMT
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame

In article <XqPosB2w165w@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca> yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee) writes:
>Warning : levelling nuke on its way:

Does that mean all of Northern Indiana is now leveled and I'm posting this
from the great sparcstation in the sky?

>ulick@stravinsky.helios.nd.edu (Ulick Stafford) writes:
>
>-
>- In more sparkling English Yaya from the tundra spouts shite.  You must be
>- Canadian since you are posting from Canada.  Americans, like me :-), have
>- as much right to 'fell` some way about the situation of the IRA setting
>- off 'boms' in London as Canadians like you.  Is your native tongue some
>- Inuit dialect, and does that explain your lousy English (and French)?
>-
>  Nice try, USer.  I am a Briton from Surrey, and I personally CANNOT stand how
>the US is getting to be as bad as the former USSR when it comes to history.

etc.  Of pretty low intensity due to poorly typed activation code :-)

>esp the Irish, because these people get more of a black eye than anyone else.
>I suggest that you talk to some Irish moderates, BEFORE your next posting !!

(No need to waste deflector shield energy)
Yaya, you idiot.  Please stop posting, at least to s.c.c.  I am as American as
you are Canadian, which is what my smily implied.  I might not be an Irish
'moderate', if that is the term you use for West-Brit, but Irish I am and even
if I wasn't I would be entitled to my opinions.

>TO fellow netters, sorry for the harsh tone!

Ha!  Ha!  Ha!  We're all really upset!!!  You could please those of us who
read soc.culture.celtic if you never posted here at all (except then we 
wouldn't have the fun of belittleing a true idiot, whose flames are as 
potent as his brain).  


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 
+ 'There was a  master come unto the earth, + Ulick Stafford, PP-ASEL       +
+    born in the holy land of Indiana,      + Dept of Chemical Engineering, +
+ in the mystical hills east of Fort Wayne'.+ Notre Dame, IN 46556          +
+      B'fhearr liom bheith ag eitilt.      +    ulick@bach.helios.nd.edu   +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: phd85@seq1.keele.ac.uk (D.H. Holden)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Words: American vs English (UK type)
Date: 7 Oct 92 18:30:52 GMT
Organization: Keele University, England

From article <1992Oct7.085003.6490@crc.ac.uk>, by msmith@crc.ac.uk (Mike Smith x3297):
> In article <thos.718421370@suite.sw.oz.au>, thos@suite.sw.oz.au (Thomas Cohen) writes:
>> 
>> What do people over in the UK call Tractor-trailer rigs (to use the 
>> American parlance)? We call them Semi's (from semi-trailer or
>> semi-articulated, which doesn't really make a lot of sense).
>> 
> It varies, some people call them Artic's (short for articulated), others call
> them Juggernauts.
> 
> Mike SMith

	 artics?  juggernauts? I always call them trucks.
--
Dave.
phd85@uk.ac.keele.seq1
From: cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Chris Cooke)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Edinburgh
Date: 8 Oct 92 14:36:29 GMT
	<henk.718532012@dutepp17>
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

In article <henk.718532012@dutepp17> h.jonkers@et.tudelft.nl (Henk Jonkers) writes:

   To me, the Scottish pronunciation sounds more like "Enbruh".

The Duke of Edinburgh is sometimes known around here as the "Chookie-Embra".

--
	-- Chris. 	cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk   (on Janet, cc@uk.ac.ed.dcs)

		
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: venus@nexus.yorku.ca (Venus M Adler)
Subject: exeter university
Organization: York University
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 17:55:21 GMT

hi,

i'm interested in speaking to electronic people from exeter university
regarding their computer network.

please reply.

venus.







Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: sue@netcom.com (Sue Miller)
Subject: Re: Return to UK - Queries.
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 17:48:50 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.080440.23330@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
>From: agc@bmdhh298.bnr.ca (Alan Carter)
>>I left Ipswich about this time last year. At that time the place
>>struck me as particularly economically depressed. The little flowing
>>through the docks (mainly timber since Felixstowe containerised) seemed
>>to have dropped off even more, there had just been 300 made redundant
>>at Pauls' grain works near the docks, the USAF bases that helped support
>>the retail sector were closing down, BT were operating Project Sovreign
>>to cut staff levels, the insurance companies were experiencing losses
>>and even Fisons were starting out on a difficult time for their share price.
>>This recession has been bad all over the UK, but Ipswich seems to have been
>>hit particularly hard.
>>
>>Many of the shops in the town centre were closed down with boards over
>>the windows. In the week I left, the Austin Reed branch was closing down.
>>A woman working there said that although the shop was right in front of
>>the door to the big new Buttermarket development that was being built,
>>she didn't beleive that any shops would be opening there so that would be
>>to no advantage.
>>
>>This is a purely personal impression over 12 months old, but my advice
>>would be to avoid Ipswich if you want more than a hypothetical
>>aquaintance with employment.
>
>I don't see any reason to particularly advise avoiding Ipswich.
>Your description of the place could apply to almost anywhere in
>Britain after 13 years of "economic miracle" Tory government.
>It would be marginally more useful to point out a town that
>hasn't had large-scale redundancies, and whose shopping centre
>is full and bustling. Offhand, I can't think of any.
>


I agree.  I left Ipswich about a month ago, and it seemed
to be not much worse off than many places in England.  The
Butter Market isn't open yet, but the downtown was actually
fairly well-populated during shopping hours.  I liked Ipswich
a great deal.

sue
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: sasjqw@millay.unx.sas.com (Jon White)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Sod
Date: 8 Oct 92 21:40:25 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Originator: sasjqw@millay.unx.sas.com


In article <1992Oct6.205529.5426@cas.org>, jac54@cas.org () writes:
|> In article <1asqupINNsq@early-bird.think.com> sandee@Think.COM (Daan Sandee) writes:
|> >In article <1asp8uINNoct@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, ah335@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard Banks) writes:
|> >|> I notice many British people use the word `sod' when refering to someone.
|> >|> It's seems to be used negatively.  What is a sod?  What does it mean?
|> >|> When would you refer to someone as a sod?  And finally, what is a
|> >|> `cheeky sod'?
|>
|>      [stuff deleted for brevity]
|>
|> >Driving through rural Central Florida, I pass an ill-executed sign saying
|> >"CHEAP SOD". I hope it's not intentional.
|> >
|>
|>      Not to mention the unfortunate sign on I-80 in Des Moines:
|>
|>      "John White, Sodding"


I'll say!

--Jon (no relation :)
From: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Salaries
Date: 13 Oct 92 08:35:06 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

From: hiscrp@nuscc.nus.sg (C R Pennell)
>Question:
>       Assume a basic salary of 17,000 pounds a year. Before tax.
>       Assume that there is sufficient capital to buy house without
>       having to take out a mortgage.
>       Is the salary enough to live on in S.W. England (husband, wife
>       two small children)?
>       What do people think (restrain yourself, Laurence)?

17,000 is more than many people with families and mortgages or
rent to pay earn. It is about the average salary in the UK.
Thus if it is not possible to live on this salary when you have
the luxury of not having to pay a mortgage then over
half the population of the UK cannot live.

Matthew Huntbach
From: wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: The Archers: a beginner's guide (was Re: Archers - FAQ)
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:37:10 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <DBROOKS.92Oct16010842@penge.osf.org>, dbrooks@penge.osf.org (David Brooks) writes:
> wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
> 
>>   Corrections to this are very welcome!
> 
> Good with the younger generation, I see, but a few errors.  For example,
> Tony is Phil's nephew.
> 
The younger generation is easy: they're the ones who are still active now. The
older generation was basically guesswork since my devotion only dates back a
few years. Over the weekend I'll try and collate my guide with David's to
produce a definitive guide.

UK readers may be interested to know that this coming week's Radio Times has a
report on a recent Archer's fan club convention in Birmingham (Brum di Brum di
Brum di Brum...) I'll post the details it gives of the club, for the benefit of
lonely expats, after the weekend.

-- 

Stephen Wilcox             |   Remember what happened to the dinosaurs!
wilcox@maths.oxford.ac.uk  |    I did---and look what happened to me.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.politics.british,soc.culture.celtic
From: seanr@spock.retix.com (Sean MacRoibeaird)
Subject: Re: Is there any need for that struggle(Re: Irish Rejects Associated (IRA))
Organization: Retix, Santa Monica
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 17:39:34 GMT

"Is it still true that doing a, say, physics exam in Irish gets automatically
10% more marks than doing it in English?"

The fact was that, by answering through Irish, the student got 10% of
the grade attained added to his final score. He/she did not
autimatically start out with a 10% head start.

You seem  to be missing  the point.  Such a  system was  installed  to
encourage  the use of Irish in  schools.  The  effect on immigrants to
Ireland is and was  negligible,  as the vast  majority of students sat
their exams through English.   Burke,  Shaw and Beckett, etc. wrote in
the  English language,  and  as such would  have  been studied  in the
English course, not the Irish.
--

=======================================================================
The views expressed here are mine, and mine  alone. If you want to know
my employer's opinion - ask him.

"We fight - when they ask us
 We boast - then we cower
 We beg for a piece of what's already ours"

Sean Mac Roibeaird			Tel: (310) 828-3400 Ext 2-210
RETIX
Professional Services Unit
2401 Colorado Ave
Santa Monica, CA 90404
USA					E-mail: seanr@spock.retix.com
=======================================================================
-- 

=======================================================================
The views expressed here are mine, and mine  alone. If you want to know
my employer's opinion - ask him.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Clew or Clue ?
From: comjohn@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz (Mr. John T Jensen)
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 23:26:04 GMT
Organization: University of Auckland, New Zealand.

However, it is worth noting that a handful of non-American English spellings
have gradually succumbed to the floodtime of merkanisms over the years.  I
still try to use connexion, reflexion, inflexion, complexion, but must admit
it's tough.  Even gaol has just about disappeared in EnZed.  Indeed, you
hear the last letter of the alphabet called Zee often enough.  And I have a
friend who loses battles regularly with editors when he writes 'shew' ---
the latter being one even I wouldn't have the courage to use (though it was
still frequent until WWII.  And while all Kiwis are aware that 'we' write
both licence and license, few are accurate at deciding what context to write
which in.  'Licenced' is at least as common as 'licensed' even in printed
materials and on signs.

If only the Danes and the Normans had stayed at home and minded their own
business we might still be able to write proper English!

jj

John Thayer Jensen                      64 9 373 7599 ext. 7543
Commerce Computer Services              64 9 373 7437 (FAX)
Auckland University                     jt.jensen@aukuni.ac.nz
Private Bag 92019
AUCKLAND
New Zealand
From: sp@osf.org (Simon Patience)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Does being Tory mean you're Thick
Date: 16 Oct 92 13:41:58 GMT
Organization: Open Software Foundation

In article <26950@castle.ed.ac.uk>, cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:
> In article <PD.92Oct15175700@herts.x.co.uk> pd@x.co.uk (Paul Davey) writes:
> >>>>>> On 13 Oct 92 16:18:00 GMT, godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE GODFREY) said:
> >  ...
> >-> I suggest that being Tory simply means that you're thick.
> 
> >... political views bear little relation to intelligence.
> 
> Back in the bad old days when people believed in IQs, and every
> schoolchild in the UK (in the state education system) sat the 11-plus
> IQ test in order to determine which stream of secondary education they
> should enter, a favourite pastime of newspapers at election time was
> to answer this question by checking out the 11-year-old-IQs of voters
> and MPs.
> 
> They invariably found that the average IQ of Tory MPS was less than
> the average IQ of Labour MPs, and the average IQ of Tory voters was
> less than the average IQ of Labour voters. The kind of differences
> they found were similar, about 10 points in each case, as I remember.
> No doubt this contributed to the discrediting of IQ tests.

And not a reference for this enlightening information in sight.

> It is also the case that schoolteachers for some strange reason are on
> average more left wing than the country as a whole. This is a problem
> for the Tory party, who do not wish to be paying the salaries of
> people who might be teaching little children to vote them out.

Quite right. If any teacher of any political persuasion (even one I
agreed with) tried 'teaching' my child (soon to be children) about what
to vote, I would be most upset (<-- understatement alert). That is not 
what they are paid to do. I would find that as distasteful as any teacher
trying to convert a child to their own brand of religion.

> Therefore we have such things in the national curriculum as the
> history cut-off date -- history officially finishes at the end of the
> 2nd World War. That will stop these blasted left-wing teachers from
> talking to the kids about modern politics.

This is what happens when you don't do your job properly I suppose. You
get stupidly restrictive rules placed on you.

> So I think it is a little simplistic to suggest that politics has
> little relation to intelligence.

But not half as simplistic as to suggest that it does.

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