HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chem91@Elroy.UH.EDU ("Bill Harrison (713)-743-2789")
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: An astonishing Guy
Date: 6 Nov 92 15:44:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: menudo.1992Nov6.154424.8438
Reply-To: chem91@Elroy.UH.EDU
Organization: University of Houston

[...]
>
>All governments are after -->your rights.<--   Worshipping a bit of   
>paper doesn't help.   In fact, in the US it seems to get in the
>way.   These days Americans seem all the more willing to have
>the police kick down someone else's door, or arrest someone
>else who "fits a profile", because they know that the Constitution
>"protects their rights".   
>
>jon.

But just *what* rights are innate??  The stuff Jon describes are presumably
part of the "war on drugs"... Anything to take peoples' minds off the real
problems... (both reps and dems are equally cynical here, and Perot talks like
a fascist).

BTW, non-yanks may like to know that the 200th aniversary "tour" of the Bill
of Rights was "sponsored" by a tobacco company...

Bill

+ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\               /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+
| Bill Harrison,            \             /       "Be as radical as... |
| University of Houston, TX  >-----------<         reality itself"     |
| CHEM91@JETSON.BITNET      /             \                V. I. Lenin |
+ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/               \~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: cockburn@edieng.enet.dec.com (Craig Cockburn)
Subject: Re: Marketing Research in Europe
Organization: Digital Equipment Co. Ltd., Reading, England
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 15:50:23 GMT


In article <1992Nov12.141437.14758@pixel.kodak.com>, dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones) writes...
>Gilbert Man-Fai Lau (gilbertl@aludra.usc.edu) wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 	My friend is working on a marketing research in Europe. I will be
>> very appreciated if any of you can answer the following questions? 
>>
>A little context needed here....
> 
>> 1. Does any chain-store like Blockbuster exists in Europe?
>>
>"Blockbuster Video" is a chain of large (i.e. bigger than an average
>W H Smugg) video rental outlets.
> 
> 

Blockbuster is quite widespread throughout southern England. There's one
in Reading which I use frequently. They don't have any outlets in Scotland.

	Craig

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Craig Cockburn, Digital Equipment Co. Ltd, Reading, England.     Suas
  Internet: cockburn@edieng.enet.dec.com                           leis
  UUCP:..!decwrl!edieng.enet.dec.com!cockburn                      a'
                                                                   Gha\idhlig!
  Views here are my own, and are not necessarily those of Digital
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban
From: sue@netcom.com (Sue Miller)
Subject: Re: An astonishing Guy
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 17:14:23 GMT

In article <1dad6jINNl0c@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>
>In article <Bx81st.1n0@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU>, streater@unixjr.SLAC.Stanford.EDU writes:
>> In article <lfgdnoINN46@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> linden@positive.Eng.Sun.COM (Trelford Pinkerton) writes:
>> > 
>> >Sort of makes the dirt of a Presidential election fade by
>> >comparison, doesn't it?  That's what you get when you don't have
>> >a Bill of Rights.
>> > 
>> Ah, but that's just it. There *is* an English Bill of Rights. Passed by
>> Parliament in 1689 and entitled "An Act Declaring the RIghts and Liberties of
>> the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown". This was passed after
>> the Catholic James II (brother of and successor to Charles II) had done some
>> number of things people didn't like, which resulted in his being booted out 
>> and WilliamAndMary being asked to reign instead. It forms part of the written
>> part of the Constitution.
>> 
>> Feels like I post this every 6 months or so when some yo-yo bleats on about
>> lack of Bill 'O Rights, Constitution etc. Should be part of the s.c.b FAQ,
>> along with Dan Archer's great aunt's maiden name.
>
>Very few Americnas know that chunks of their own Bill of Rights
>is inspired by, and in some cases quoted from, the English Bill.
>
>Notable exceptions are the gun nuts, who know that it refers to
>a right to bear arms, but who quote it incorrectly, since they 
>miss out the bit about "subject to law".
>

Bollocks - most 'Americnas' know that.  You are correct about
the gun nuts, however.  They also miss out the bit about
the right to bear arms being contingent on their being part of
a well-regulated militia.
From: ssouth@hpldsla.sid.hp.com (Steve South)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Counties (was: Phrase)
Date: 2 Nov 92 17:27:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: hpldsla.28590011
Organization: HP Scientific Instruments Division - Palo Alto, CA

In soc.culture.british  gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry) writes:

>Also the famous final "l" is unique to Bristol, as in "operal",
>"cameral", "primal donnal", and indeed "Bristol" itself.

Quite so. Moreover, they drive Fort Cortinals or Fiat Pandals, and they go
on holiday to places like Autralial, Americal, or the malarial areal of
Africal.

--
>Guy Barry, University of Cambridge | Phone: +44 (0)223 334757 

Steve South - HP Palol Altol, Californial.
From: A.Grant@ucs.cam.ac.uk (Alasdair Grant)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Just a quick question
Date: 7 Nov 92 19:19:52 GMT
Organization: University of Cambridge

In article <1992Nov6.122743.17010@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> rsthomas@nyx.cs.du.edu (Rich Thomas) writes:
>Could someone tell me (email please) the definition of
>a common-law marriage in England? Thanks.

I think some previous posters have missed the point, so I'll reply in public:

A common-law marriage is one that has been performed by 'common form', i.e. 
ancient custom such as stepping over a broomstick, or being pronounced man 
and wife by someone generally accepted as an authority but without the 
status (minister of religion, JP or sea captain?) to make it a fully legal 
marriage. This used to be much more, er, common than it is now. 

This is as opposed to 'de facto' marriage which just means habitual
cohabitation with someone of the opposite sex. All the forms I've seen 
recently use the term 'de facto' rather than 'common-law'.
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:15604 alt.folklore.urban:28049 misc.legal:19764
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Britain doesn't have a Constitution (Re: An astonishing Guy)
Date: 10 Nov 92 22:56:59 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <lfqrduINNa4m@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, linden@positive.Eng.Sun.COM 
(Trelford Pinkerton) writes:
> It will be straightforward to tell the difference: please provide a list
> of recent British laws which have been set aside by the courts as being
> "unconstitutional".

"An order or direction of a court designed to facilitate the selection of a 
jury by methods not directly provided for in the Juries Act 1974 or 
recognised by the common  law is unconstitutional.  It is therefore 
unconstitutional  for the police authorities to engage in 'Jury vetting'.  So 
long as a person is eligible for jury service under the 1974 Act it is wrong 
that the police should go through his record behind his back, to enable him 
to be asked to stand by for the Crown or be challenged by the defence.  The 
courts should not lend their aid to the extraction of further information 
than that provided for in the 1974 Act."  R. v. Crown Court at Sheffield, ex 
parte Brownlow, Queen's Bench Division, Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 
[1980] 1 QB 530, [1980] 2 All ER 444, [1980] 2 WLR 892, 71 Cr App Rep 19, 
[1980] RTR 321, 145 JP 1 (3 March 1980).

In the interest of higher quality answers, I'm adding misc.legal to the 
newsgroups line (but why is a.f.u there?).


Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
From: atmpas@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Census Statistics (apparently leaked)
Date: 5 Nov 92 10:01:29 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <1992Nov4.201653.6745@news.nd.edu>, ulick@bernini.helios.nd.edu (Ulick Stafford) writes:

(arguement deleted)
> But why would redrawing a border within NI be any different?  Let's say
> they split Northern Ireland in 2 small states called Northeast Ireland
> and Northwest Ireland.  And the 2 states have 2 different sets of 
> Westminster ministers running them.  Then lo and behold a referndum is
> called in Northwest Ireland calling for reunification and it passes,
> while Northeast Ireland remains part of the UK.  I don't understand
> how your argument could preclude such a scenario.
> 
	(I agree with the idea as a response to the deleted arguement; but it
would need agreement from the Republic, too)

	Such an action wouldn't be in the long (or short) term self interest of
the mainland British though.  Keeping NI whole minimises the amount of time
until the province is 50% Republican - at which point the British government
will be able to decently hand it over to Eire, which they will do with
considerable relief. 

	Until then, the path of least resistance is to hold on to the whole 
thing.  A partial return would infuriate the Unionists while failing to reduce
Republican paramilitary activity.  They could claim a partial victory, make a
great many recruits, and call for 'one last push' to get the remainder of
the province.  When it ultimately does get handed back, there will be
considerable unrest (how much is unclear, but a general strike by Unionists is
the minimum).  The British don't want to go through that more often than
necessary, and would much prefer to watch most of it from the other side of the
Irish Sea.


		- Paul
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:15421 alt.folklore.urban:27786
From: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Can the Prime Minster be Catholic?
Date: 9 Nov 92 10:49:12 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

From: linden@positive.Eng.Sun.COM (Trelford Pinkerton)
>A Catholic prime minister would certainly raise major questions of
>protocol however: for example, certain appointments within Britian's
>State Church (Bishoprics, etc) are made on the prime minister's
>recommendation.    A Catholic prime minister would therefore be selecting
>the leaders of a competing franchise.
>
>So has there ever been a Catholic prime minister?

I don't believe there ever has been a Catholic PM, but there
have been PMs from other non Church of England denominations
for whom the same comments could apply.

Matthew Huntbach
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: jlb10@cl.cam.ac.uk (John Beaven)
Subject: Re: Accent and Dialect, the politics there
Keywords: Scots, Cockney, Taggart, Eastenders
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 14:22:30 GMT

In article <BxJyLL.4EE@newcastle.ac.uk>, unregistered@newcastle.ac.uk (William Coyne) writes:
|>  How about this simple rule - if you can understand what they are saying
|>    they are speaking a dialect of English.  If Scots really is a separate
|> language then if they were speaking it you could not understand them
|> 
|>  Though on this grounds Portuguese and Spanish  or Danish and Swedish
|> might be classed as single languages.

The problem with this test is that it doesn't define an equivalence 
relation, which is what you'd want if you are referring to
the "same" language.

It is possible for speaker of A to understand speaker of B, and for
speaker of B to understand speaker of C, but A and C not to understand
each other, so it is not transitive.

It is not symmetric either: most Portuguese speakers who haven't learned
Spanish understand it, but most Spanish speakers don't understand 
Portuguese.


John
From: cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Chris Cooke)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Accent and Dialect, the politics there
Date: 6 Nov 92 09:53:06 GMT
	<1992Nov5.130526.29965@gssec.bt.co.uk>
	<A.Grant.15.720995919@ucs.cam.ac.uk>
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

In article <A.Grant.15.720995919@ucs.cam.ac.uk> A.Grant@ucs.cam.ac.uk (Alasdair Grant) writes:

   Please give examples.  Scott, Smollett, Adam Smith?  Burns is well-known,
   but hardly 'respected'.

Obviously not in Cambridge, anyway.  More fool you.
--
	-- Chris. 	cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk   (on Janet, cc@uk.ac.ed.dcs)
From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Can the Prime Minster be Catholic?
Date: 11 Nov 92 23:23:04 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

In article <1992Nov10.145541.17601@sei.cmu.edu> firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes:
>In article <lfu419INNjqc@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> linden@positive.Eng.Sun.COM (Trelford Pinkerton) writes:
>
>>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.
>
>This person must speak a dialect in which "entangle" has a different
>meaning.
>
>Yes, as every sane and stable society has known for eight thousand
>years, religion has a proper place in the body politic.  It should
>be given that place, duly respected and listened to, and, of course,
>firmly confined to that proper place.
>
>Some societies allow religion too great a place; we call them theocracies.
>Others, by contrast, foolishly deny religion any place, and then find not
>only endless public strife about moral issues unresolvable within a crippled
>polity, but also numerous surreptitious attempts by the religious to
>gain by stealth the recognition they are overtly denied.  The result,
>of course, is pretty messy.  I think entanglement is an appropriate
>word to describe the result.

Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925) proposed a "Threefold Social Order" in which there would
be three independent spheres, political, cultural ("geistig"), and economic.  The
society needs all three, just as the body needs the different organs.  But each 
has a different nature and function and needs to be able to work according to
that nature.  Defining what activity belongs to what sphere is not easy, especially
as people are active in all three spheres at different times and often at the
same time.  Each sphere, of supports the whole society and they support but mustn't 
usurp the others.

In any case, religion, art, and education belong, according to Steiner,
to the cultural sphere and need to be kept free from the other two. Current
American experience in all three certainly validates the last sentence.  We
have our controversies over prayer in schools, public education vs choice, and 
the government funding of obscene art.  It seems that the issues are somewhat
more benign in England.

g.p.
From: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Dog in House of Parliament
Date: 9 Nov 92 09:49:14 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

From: gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
In article <1992Nov6.102130.2990@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
>>From: ses@cmns-sun.think.com (Simon Edward Spero)
>>> Is it true that the Liberal Democrats have finally decided to follow David
>>>Owen and join the Tory party, or do they just act that way?
>>
>>The motion asked for support of the Maastricht treaty.
>
>No it didn't.  It invited the House to proceed with the ratification
>process.
>
>>All the Liberal Democrat MPs, with the exception of Nick Harvey support
>>the Maastricht treaty, so all, with the exception of Nick
>>Harvey voted for it. What's wrong with this?
>
>This is incredibly naive of you.  It's perfectly possible to support
>the Maastricht treaty and yet to favour delaying ratification.
>Whethe  the Lib Dems should have voted against the motion for
>tactical reasons is another matter.

Why is it naive? The Parliamentary Lib Dem position was that
even voting for postponment would have shown lack of British
willingness to accept the Maastricht treaty, and thus would
have damaged British prospects. As an opponent of Maastricht, I
don't believe this, but I have no reason to believe that the
Lib Dem MP's vote was anything but a sincere show of support
for an issue in which they deeply believe. Labour supporters
have spread all sorts of rumours and inuendoes about this vote,
but then since they lack any sort of principles, and will do
anything to get votes, it's obvious that they just can't
understand people acting on principles even when to do
so is damaging to them personally. Voting against something
you believe in just to say "yah boo sucks" to the government is
surely a very childish way to behave.

As it is, the Tory right are already calling for more influence
in the party following their near defeat of the government in
this vote. What would they be asking for had they actually
defeated the government? It is incredibly naive to suppose this
would have led to a general election. John Major may have
resigned, but it is also incredibly naive to blame the current
mess on him rather than on 13 years of Tory government. If
Major had resigned, the likelihood is that an even worse Tory
would have been put in his place.

Matthew Huntbach
From: firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Can the Prime Minster be Catholic?
Date: 10 Nov 92 14:55:41 GMT
Organization: Software Engineering Institute

In article <lfu419INNjqc@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> linden@positive.Eng.Sun.COM (Trelford Pinkerton) writes:

>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.

This person must speak a dialect in which "entangle" has a different
meaning.

Yes, as every sane and stable society has known for eight thousand
years, religion has a proper place in the body politic.  It should
be given that place, duly respected and listened to, and, of course,
firmly confined to that proper place.

Some societies allow religion too great a place; we call them theocracies.
Others, by contrast, foolishly deny religion any place, and then find not
only endless public strife about moral issues unresolvable within a crippled
polity, but also numerous surreptitious attempts by the religious to
gain by stealth the recognition they are overtly denied.  The result,
of course, is pretty messy.  I think entanglement is an appropriate
word to describe the result.
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:15430 alt.folklore.urban:27792
From: dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: s.c.b FAQ (was: An astonishing Guy)
Date: 9 Nov 92 11:54:53 GMT
Reply-To: dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks)
Followup-To: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban
Organization: Open Software Foundation

livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
> [etc]
>	Declaration that the Commons shall Initiate Money Bills 1407.

-->	Petition of Right, 1628.

>	Habeas Corpus Act, 1679.
> [etc]
-- 
David Brooks					dbrooks@osf.org
Open Software Foundation			uunet!osf.org!dbrooks
Allueberall und ewig blauen licht die Fernen!  Ewig... ewig... ewig...
From: dpl@aber.ac.uk (David Philip Langstaff)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Seebackascopes
Date: 12 Nov 92 12:09:38 GMT
Organization: University of Wales, Aberystwyth

In article <2164@eagle.ukc.ac.uk> jmb@ukc.ac.uk (Mike Bremner) writes:
>One of the contestants on "The News Quiz" at lunchtime (Alan Coren?)
>made a passing reference to the Seebackascope (the context, relating to
>a news item about spies, need not concern us). 
> [snip,snip]
>I had a deprived childhood, and did not own one of these marvels.  Nor,
>indeed, did any of my friends.  I suspect that the Seebackascope did not
>enjoy any great degree of popularity or success.  Is there anyone out
>there willing to confess to having possessed one, and to tell us how
>effective it was?  How well could you see?  How conspicuous were you?

I seem to remember playing with a similar device when I was 8 or
so. It was a periscope type design, but the top half could be assembled
in to positions to enable either looking over obstacles or looking behind.

I'm not sure whether the chaps from the Circus would have been too impressed
with the device, as it was about 8 inches long, by about 3" wide and
fabricated from a brightly coloured plastic, (or possible carboard).
Visibility was roughly on a par with looking in a wing mirror.

I was amused by Barry Took's revelation that due to new sex discrimination
laws, MI6 where looking forward to the employment of Britain's first
hetereosexual spy.


-- 
Dave Langstaff | Janet:dpl@uk.ac.aber
Any views expressed are those of the author alone. | Phone:(0970)622838 
After-life, After-shave, don't hold with any of it, bleugh! - Sir Henry 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban
From: riaedwards@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au (AUDREY EDWARDS)
Subject: Re: The amazing disappearing British Constitution
Organization: Halls of Residence, Monash University 
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 06:33:56 GMT

In article <BxFKu4.3Dv@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU> streater@unixjr.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Tim Streater) writes:
>From: streater@unixjr.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Tim Streater)

>I for one would appreciate a good modern reference to the British Constitution.
>Any offers?

>Sn.

Sir, I gladly oblige.

3 suggestions....

1. E.C.S. Wade and A.W. Bradley: "Constitutional And Administrative Law" 
(1985) 10th ed. Longman. ISBN 0-582 49124-X.

(This is standard law degree text, and includes political as well as legal 
considerations. Probably too weighty for general read.)

2. H. Calvert: "An Introduction To British Constitutional Law"(1985) 
Financial Training. ISBN 0906322685.

(An excellent book for general information. The first chapter goes into the 
myriad varieties of constitution which appear throughout the world. Also 
details political matters.)

3. D. Pollard and D. Hughes: "Constitutional and Administrative Law - Text 
and Materials"(1990) ISBN 0406506000.

(This gives extracts of primary sources of Constitutional Law. Again, more 
academic than for general reading). 

If you want further material, just e-mail me and I will see what I can dig 
up.

Audrey.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british