HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban,misc.legal
Subject: Re: The amazing disappearing British Constitution
Date: 14 Nov 92 02:09:31 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1992Nov14.005913.11173@news.columbia.edu>, lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner) writes:
|> In article <1duhfcINN3k@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> >> 
|> >> If we're talking US (hard to tell from context) I highly doubt this.  The US 
|> >> COnstitution has a prohibition gainst Bills of Attainder, of which this is 
|> >> probably an example.
|> >
|> >I believe you could not be more mistaken.   I have head
|> >that it's really not uncommon for the US Congress to pass
|> >laws that benefit individual persons.   Immigrantion cases
|> >are the classic example.
|> 
|> But the point is not that there are private bills to benefit individuals, 
|> but rather that unrelated items are packaged together to coerce passage
|> because the larger matters are important enough to be passed, and the lesser
|> ones want to be eliminated by a line-item veto.

I'm not quite sure I see what your objection is to what I wrote.   I know
that the mechanism by which these things pass is that the bulk of the Bill
is respectable, and the rest goes through on the tails of its coat.  In a
previous posting, I spelled this out in detal.

If you look back at the part of the posting you edited out, you will find
one  tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com arguing that Bills to benefit individual
persons are outlawed by the ban on Bill of Attainder.    I'm just commenting
that not only does this appear not ban such Bills, but that they continue
to be passed.

jon.
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:15522 alt.folklore.urban:27936
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Can the Prime Minster be Catholic?
Date: 10 Nov 92 02:55:51 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com


In article <lfu419INNjqc@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, linden@positive.Eng.Sun.COM writes:
> > Well, has there ever been a Catholic prime minister of Britain?
> 
> From: firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth)
> > Such a question is significant only in a country where religion 
> > and politics are far more entangled than they ought to be.
> 
> You mean, perhaps, a country where the monarch is the Supreme Head of
> the established Church?  And where bishops of that Church sit in the
> upper chamber of the Parliament?  And vote on legislation?
> In short, Britain.
> 
> I guess I agree that such a country entangles religion and politics 
> far more than they ought to be.

	"I don't think that atheists should be considered
	citizens.   Nor should they be considered patriots.
	This is one nation under God".

Please tell us who said that?   Was it the Queen or George
Bush?   Hint: it wasn't the Queen.

In case this is too cryptic for you, what Mr Firth is
saying is, if religion and politics were entangled on a day
to day basis in the UK, as they seem to be in the US, we
would certainly have to do something about these historical
hangovers, but as long as they are not so entangled, it's
not really all that important.

No-one is claiming that it's "right" or "desirable" to have
Archbishops in the House of Lords.    If there was nothing
more important or urgent on the legislative calendar, I
would be in favour of doing something about it.

But there are more important issues to deal with, and
claiming that these almost totally powerless old duffers
and their presence in this almost powerless chamber is some
important blot on our democracy is crackpottery.

Mr. Pinkerton, you're a crackpot.   Try not to become a
bore and a crackpot.

jon.
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:15298 alt.folklore.urban:27580
From: wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Women Priests (was Re: VNS: Fri  6-Nov-1992)
Date: 9 Nov 92 11:54:08 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <1992Nov6.111229.19081@rdg.dec.com>, evansg@uproar.enet.dec.com (Gwyn Evans @ IME) writes:
>     A survey by the Radio 4 Today programme indicates that next week's vote
>     by the General Synod of the Church of England on the ordination of women
>     priests is going to be very close.
> 

I just thought I'd mention that in terms of Anglican politics, `very close'
does not mean `split 50-50'. Rather it means `66 or 67 percent in favour of a
measure that needs a two-thirds majority in each of three houses.' 

For those interested in the figures, they are:

Bishops: 70-something % in favour
Clergy: 67% in favour
Laity: 66% in favour.

Every member of all three houses was polled; responses were obtained from about
85% of members. The sample size is about 130 bishops and several hundreds in
the other two houses. The actual vote is on Wednesday, November 11. 

A similar survey of ordinary church-goers by the BBC Radio Sunday programme
found that about 67% were in favour of women priests, and that 72% would accept
a woman as a parish priest. An overall majority of those polled was in favour
in each of the three broad camps: evangelicals, `unaligned' and
Anglo-Catholics. Among priests as a whole, again about 67% were in favour,
though only 40-odd% of Anglo-Catholics were.

Whichever way the vote goes, there will be some adverse reaction. If the vote
ends up in favour, many priests are expected to become Roman Catholics. There
will be protection for such people. If, however, the vote goes against, it is
expected that some ordained women will leave the Anglican church. There are no
proposals yet for compensating these people. There are also talks of `strikes'
by priests, who may withdraw from celebrating the Eucharist until legislation
goes through.

If the vote passes its required two-thirds majority it must be ratified by
parliament, where more opposition is likely. If the vote falls it cannot be
reintroduced until a new Synod is in place, which will currently be in 1995. It
is theoretically possible that Synod is dissolved immediately to allow a new
Synod next year, but that is unlikely.
-- 

Stephen Wilcox             |   For Sale: Posts in British Government. Suit
wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk    |   outgoing American. Highest bids accepted.
From: gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Rule Britannia
Date: 10 Nov 92 18:51:44 GMT
Reply-To: gdb15@cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK

In article <CC.92Nov10132130@arran.dcs.ed.ac.uk> cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Chris Cooke) writes:
>In article <1df1qvINN7jo@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>
>   And is that what you want?   A permanent state of
>   coalitions?  Have you taken a look at Israeli, or Belgian
>   or Irish politics recently?   Or the sparkling record of
>   our own lamented National Government back in the thirties?
>
>Or the sparkling record of most countries which are richer than the UK?  So
>many countries use PR (like, practically all of the democratic ones) that you
>really can't validly point to a little weak subset of them and say "look,
>that's where PR gets you".

And if you use "PR" to mean "(almost) any voting system apart from the
British one" as most people seem to (even the advocates of electoral
reform) then there's not much substance to the debate.  The German and
Italian systems are as different from each other as they are from the
British one.  The only country I know of that uses genuine PR is
Israel.

--
Guy Barry, University of Cambridge | Phone: +44 (0)223 334757 
Computer Laboratory                | Fax: +44 (0)223 334678
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street  | JANET: Guy.Barry@uk.ac.cam.cl 
Cambridge CB2 3QG, England, UK     | Internet: Guy.Barry@cl.cam.ac.uk 
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:15776 soc.culture.celtic:7303
From: kakleman@soc13.acpub.duke.edu (Kubilay Akleman)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: Accent and Dialect, the politics there
Date: 13 Nov 92 03:21:59 GMT
Reply-To: kakleman@soc13.acpub.duke.edu (Kubilay Akleman)
Followup-To: soc.culture.british


From what I understand, Mr. Grant seems to be against "institutionalising Gaelic"
I must say I find this quite surprising, Mr. Grant has a lovely Gaelic name (Alasdair)
Gaelic is one of the world's oldest living languages. It is also one of the world's 
most beautiful. Scotland is very lucky to be able to identify itself with such a language. 
I realise that teaching Gaelic in schools may not benefit children economically, but what does?
Does teaching history or philosophy benefit them economically? And what about their identity? 
Gaelic was spoken in a very great part of Scotland. It belongs to Scotland, is part of 
Scottish culture and national identity. And these children who grow up learning two languages 
would find it infinitely easier to learn other ones. I speak from experience, I grew up speaking 
two languages, now I find it very easy to learn other ones. The inability of monoglot English-speakers 
to learn another language is positively legendary!
Why should these children learn Scots or Gaelic? 
Quite simply because they ARE Scots and these are THEIR languages. To be proud of. If English is so 
useful, why isn't everybody in the world brought up speaking it? Why are French children brought up 
speaking French and not English? Because they are French. And Scottish children are Scottish and 
should not be brought up speaking a foreign Language, however useful.
In countries other than the U.K. and Ireland, people do not realise that Scotland is a different 
nation with a different history and culture. (The same goes for Wales and Ireland!) Many 
think Scots are just English who wear kilts and play bagpipes and have never heard of 
Gaelic (or Welsh). In many many countries, the word for "England" is used to mean the whole 
of the U.K. and the fact that English is spoken in Scotland is regarded as matter-of-fact.
If they knew about Gaelic and where it came from (and what it was like - many people think it's 
just another dialect of English) then they'd think twice about Scottish (and Welsh and Irish) 
national identity. And how could they be expected to if Gaelic was just left to die?
How could anyone want such an old and rich and beautiful language to die? 

I realise my arguments here aren't very structured.
What I'm trying to say is: Both Scots and Gaelic are part of the Scottish national identity. 
They enrich Scottish and world culture. And anyone who claims to be Scottish should know them.
Becase otherwise they are deprived from the VAST MAJORITY of their own history and culture 
- which was conducted in these "useless" languages. And so Scottish children SHOULD be brought up 
speaking BOTH. And I'm positive this would put them at an advantage in learning other languages. 
Not to mention the advantage of feeling comfortable and secure with their own identity and culture.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: kjc7435@ultb.isc.rit.edu (K.J. Cater)
Subject: Happy Guy Fawkes Day! and please read this if you have any pets...
Originator: kjc7435@ultb
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:40:04 GMT

Happy Guy Fawkes Day (from a displaced Brit). :)

If you have a pet (cat/dog/etc.). be sure to keep it INDOORS tonight.
Pets can get very scared of loud firecrackers and if outside could be
harmed/become disoriented due to unfamiliar loud noises. If you suspect
that the trauma of the noise could be harmful to your pet (esp. if your
pet has a heart condition and is easily aggravated/bothered), consult a
veterinary surgeon about a mild sedative/sleeping aid.  

Let's be kind to our dogs and moggies!!! :)

enjoy the holiday!!! 

Miss Kerry Cater.
e-mail:"kjc7435@ritvax.isc.rit.edu".


Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Subject: Re: Rule Britannia
Reply-To: gdb15@cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 21:12:48 GMT

In article <1deircINN7jo@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:

>Did Kohl's party get an absolute majority of the popular vote
>in the last election?   

No, and they haven't got an absolute majority in the Bundestag.
The German government is a coalition.

>How about Bill Clinton?

Even if the Americans had the best electoral system in the world 
(which they certainly haven't!) they couldn't elect the
President by PR.  I suppose they could elect the electors by PR,
but they'd need a system like the Alternative Vote to ensure that
the President had majority support.



--
Guy Barry, University of Cambridge | Phone: +44 (0)223 334757 
Computer Laboratory                | Fax: +44 (0)223 334678
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street  | JANET: Guy.Barry@uk.ac.cam.cl 
Cambridge CB2 3QG, England, UK     | Internet: Guy.Barry@cl.cam.ac.uk
From: fbowles@gssec.bt.co.uk (Frank K Bowles)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Dog in House of Parliament
Date: 9 Nov 92 13:26:51 GMT
Organization: BT

In article <SES.92Nov5173817@cmns-sun.think.com>, ses@cmns-sun.think.com (Simon Edward Spero) writes:
|> 
|> p.s.
|>   Is it true that the Liberal Democrats have finally decided to follow David
|> Owen

There are few people in the Liberal Democrats who can even say the
words "David Owen" without apoplexy never mind who would want to follow
him...

|> and join the Tory party,

No thank you.  What upsets socialists is Liberal Democrats don't want
to support the principle-free opportunistic Labour Party either.
Quaint as it may seem, the Liberal Democrats have a long tradition of
support for Europe and always vote in favour of Liberal Democrat
policies in the Commons in the Commons.


|> or do they just act that way?

No, the Liberals did exactly the same in 1972 when it supported the
unpopular Heath Government in joining the EEC, against Labour and rebel
opposition. The result of this was the winning of Rochdale from the
Labour Party shortly afterwards, and the Liberals best ever
single-party general election result of modern times in Feb 1974.
(19.5%)

Supporting Europe does not in any way diminish the Liberal Democrats'
commitments to social justice, housing, unemployment and all these
other things that the Labour Party used to pay lip service to.

Further comments could be directed to uk.politics, and lets us get back
to the culture here...

Frank


|> 


  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank K Bowles, BT Glasgow Systems & Software Engineering Centre,
West TEC, 7 Caledon Street, Glasgow G12 9BY, Scotland. 
Tel: +44 41 220 5338     Email: fbowles@gssec.bt.co.uk
Fax: +44 41 220 2438     [GM4KAV]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:15899 alt.folklore.urban:28607
From: twcaps@dante.lbl.gov (Terry Chan)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: An astonishing Guy
Date: 15 Nov 1992 07:24:22 GMT
Organization: Department of Redundancy Department
Reply-To: TWChan@lbl.gov (Terry Chan)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.13.76

jpo@pfbs.philips.se (James Poole) writes:

  +Point 1
  +Guido Fauwkes is the real name of the one known as Guy Fawkes
  +There is still a traditional inspection of the cellars at Westminster 
  +when the Queen pops in for the odd opening!

What size cake does she pop out of?
  
  +Point 3
  +The Magna Carter, signed in 1215 (about 700 years before the USA was even
  +thought of) is still in force.

Is this related to Jimmy Carter?  He was born pretty close to 1915...
  
  +Point 4
  +It is a little known fact that the section in the US Constituition which
  +states that there is "The right to bear arms" was infact a miss spelling 
  +and should have read "The right to bare arms" ,thus ensuring that the good
  +folks of the US could wear T-Shirts in public!

True!  See the _Nudist Papers_ 76.

Terry "Gotta set those folks in the mother country straight" Chan
--
Energy and Environment Division   | Internet:  TWChan@lbl.gov
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory      | 
Berkeley, California  USA  94720  | Carpe Per Diem
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:15770 soc.culture.celtic:7300
From: mike@frey.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: Accent and Dialect, the politics there
Date: 13 Nov 1992 00:30:37 GMT
Organization: N.I.C.E.
Reply-To: mike@frey.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.128.81

Graham Walker writes:
>c) Personally, I am on the fence. My view is that lallans is merely old
>english with bits from gaelic, fressian, and norse thrown in, and that
>any grammer differences that do exist are because the grammer that is
>associated with lallans is old english. Consequently, if the "world

No, I don't think this is rite, Scots English or whatever is
as far away from Anglo-Saxon grammar as standard English(es).
It too lacks all the complicated inflections & has different
3rd person pronouns (I think) than Anglo-Saxon dialects had.
From: linden@positive.Eng.Sun.COM (Trelford Pinkerton)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: The amazing disappearing British Constitution
Date: 8 Nov 92 19:30:48 GMT
Organization: The Bishop Sandwich Band
NNTP-Posting-Host: positive

In response to the flagrant taunt:
> the British Constitution: everyone's sure we've got one, 
> but no-one can actually produce it.

Jon Livesy lists:
> Coronation Charter of Henry I, 1101.
> Great Charter, 1215.
> Declaration that the Commons shall Initiate Money Bills 1407.
> Habeas Corpus Act, 1679.
> Bill of Rights, 1689.
> Act of Succession, 1701.
> Septennial Act, 1716.
> Reform Acts, 1832, 1867, 1884.
> Ballot Act, 1872.
> Representation of the People Act, 1918, 1969.

We've already established that mere laws cannot comprise a constitution.
A Constitution is a framework within which all laws are made, and with
which all laws must agree.   It's a "meta-law" in comp sci terms.

Perhaps you could provide a list of recent laws in Britain that have
been overturned as "unconstitutional" by the courts?   While this would
not make your case, it would provide a more convincing argument that these
laws have a similar role as the American Constitution.  Have there been
any?

--
   Inventor of the Lambada-Calculus.
From: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Accent and Dialect, the politics there
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:06:39 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

From: cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Chris Cooke)
In article <1992Nov6.100915.2585@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
>
>   I could say exactly the same about Cockney.
>
>And lots of Welsh people could say exactly the same about Welsh.  So?  What's
>your point?

The usual anti Scotch whingers point. The Scots claim that
they are discriminated against because their dialect is not
heard on TV except in comedy. This is likely to be accompanied
by attacks on the "Southern English". My point is that the
southern English are treated exactly the same as the Scots -
when was the last time you heard anything serious on the TV
discussed in a Cockney or any other real southern accent?

Welsh is an entirely separate issue because it is without
doubt a separate language, only as close to English as say
Roumanian or Serbo-Croat (ha ha - now there's an interesting
discussion on languages/dialects/accents), and considerably
more distant than say Norwegian.

Matthew Huntbach
From: gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: How to insult a Brit (reprise)
Date: 6 Nov 92 21:57:17 GMT
Reply-To: gdb15@cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK

In article <1992Nov6.164956.8436@gssec.bt.co.uk> fbowles@gssec.bt.co.uk (Frank K Bowles) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.214831.22450@digi.lonestar.org>, gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes:
>|> 
>|> There'll always be an England, but will there always be a Great
>|> Britain and a U.K.?
>|>
>
>Geographically speaking, probably.

There'll always be a Great Britain (unless somebody sinks it) since
that's a geographical term.  On the other hand, the UK is a political
term so there may well not be one for ever.  (I'm not placing any
bets on this!)

--
Guy Barry, University of Cambridge | Phone: +44 (0)223 334757 
Computer Laboratory                | Fax: +44 (0)223 334678
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street  | JANET: Guy.Barry@uk.ac.cam.cl 
Cambridge CB2 3QG, England, UK     | Internet: Guy.Barry@cl.cam.ac.uk
From: sandee@Think.COM (Daan Sandee)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: An astonishing Guy
Date: 10 Nov 1992 21:15:40 GMT
Organization: TMC
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: telecaster.think.com

In article <MATTHEW.92Nov10185411@eeyore.uk.tele.nokia.fi>, matthew@uk.tele.nokia.fi (Matthew Faupel) writes:
|> In article <BxHx96.4Ln@newcastle.ac.uk> Trevor.Kirby@newcastle.ac.uk (Trevor
|> Kirby) writes:
|> > The right of habeous corpus was passed because the adjudicators counted a
|> > really fat lord as ten votes.
|> 
|> Maybe I've missed something, but I always thought that Habeus Corpus was a
|> law enacted to prevent people being tried for murder when there was no body
|> of the deceased to prove that murder was indeed done...  What's this got to
|> do with fat lords and adjudicators?

A well-known fallacy. I believe a detective novel long ago got it wrong,
and the fallacy has been perpetuated in the public mind.
From my online dictionary :
habeas corpus ( ha be as  cor pus )
1 Law.
         a  writ  requiring  a  person  to  be  brought  before  a
        judge  or  court,  esp.  for  investigation  of  a  restraint
         of  the  person's  liberty,  used  as  a  protection  against
         illegal  imprisonment.

Nothing to do with murders or corpses.

Daan Sandee                                           sandee@think.com
Thinking Machines Corporation
Cambridge, Mass 02142                                 (617) 234-5044
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:15763 alt.folklore.urban:28334
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: The amazing disappearing British Constitution
Date: 12 Nov 1992 21:20:16 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com


In article <1992Nov12.113132.7519@infodev.cam.ac.uk>, gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk writes:
> In article <1ds8i0INNg1j@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
> 
> >No, because what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the
> >gander.  Get yourself a party that is in favour of
> >redistributing power to local authorities, get them
> >elected, and then let them go to it.    I won't complain,
> >because there is nothing unconstitutional about them
> >reversing the process.
> 
> Sure -- but in the meantime the old democratic consensus
> which used to be a safeguard against over-centralized power
> has been eaten away, so it's become that much harder for
> any effective opposition *in the country* to find a voice.

Ironically, this is one of the reasons that many people
supported centralisation, and repeatedly re-elected the
Party that carried it out.

Had people like - what was his name, Ken Livingston? - not
insisted on setting himself up as a kind of domestic
government-in-exile there probably would not have been
anything like the public support that there was.

Now I realise that the Left has been out of power at
Westminster for a very long time, but that is mostly
something that they did to themselves.   They caught a very
strong current of history exactly backwards.    But that
does not mean that the rest of the UK political scene is
corrupt: it just means that the Left didn't know when to
trim their sails.

Now, is there some natural right to set up a rump
political opposition power base out among the local
councils, just because you can't win at Westminster?   I'm
not sure.

jon.