HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: question on cost of living in UK
Date: 9 Nov 92 10:31:19 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

From: aejones@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Amanda Banana Farts )
>I am planning on studying in London next year, and would like to
>know, realistically, what I can expect to spend.  I would be
>interested in renting a room in an apartment, nothing fancy, but in
>central London.

A room in shared flat or house around 50 pounds a week, a
self-contained flat (apartment in USAnese, I suppose, learnt to
say "flat" when you come to London) around 100 pounds a week.
Don't expect at these prices to live anywhere prestigious -
somewhere really central would be about twice this.

Matthew Huntbach
From: wells@athena.cs.uga.edu (Scott Wells)
Subject: Re: Anglican vs C of E
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 17:26:23 GMT


>There is not, so far as I know, any "official state
>religion".

>This has little to do with there being an official
>religion.  The various Emancipation Acts of the Nineteenth
>century ensured that membership of any other churhc was no
>bar to holding public office.
>
>Oh, and I think it's worth pointing out that Britain was
>busy emancipating members of other relgions about fifty
>years before America got around to emancipating its
>slaves.
>

I don't believe this. In my book, any church whose hierarchs are
Lords, and which recieves state money is the state church. Freedom and
toleration are not the same thing, which is why Americans should be
proud of (and defend) the non-extablishment clause of the First
Amendment.

BTY, I miss the analogy between American slaves and religious
dissentors. To be a Roman Catholic or a Unitarian was a capital crime
in GB until one of the Toleration Acts (rightly dated) in 1803 (?)

>So a little less sarcasm might be in order.

Religious freedom and the non-interference of government is a serious
matter. Sarcasm is a defence against those who miss the point.


-- 
Scott Wells                        +  You put *sugar* in your grits !
Internet: wells@athena.cs.uga.edu  + 
University of Georgia		   +  Get behind me Satan !
Athens, Georgia, USA               +  
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban
From: wells@athena.cs.uga.edu (Scott Wells)
Subject: Re: An astonishing Guy
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 18:47:36 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.163313.22049@pixel.kodak.com> dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones) writes:
>Steven Bellovin (smb@ulysses.att.com) wrote:
>> In article <8200.9211060924@thor.cf.ac.uk>, spxsjm@thor.cf.ac.uk (Mr S J Morris 92) writes:
>> > As for non-Catholics, there was virtually unlimited religious
freedom.

Unitarianism warrented the death penalty until the 19th century, but I
don't know if it was ever given.

>> > The period saw an enormous proliferation of religious groups -
>> > Presbyterians, Independents, Baptists, Quakers, Levellers, True
>> > Levellers, Diggers, Fifth Monarchists... - who so long as they toed the
>> > line and didn't start using violence against those who disagreed with
>> > them (the Fifth Monarchists fell down here) could say and do what they
>> > liked.
>> 
>> Sure -- since as I recall the Jews had been expelled from the country
>> some years earlier, even they didn't have to worry...
>
>Try centuries, not years.  The expulsions and massacres occurred in the 14th
>century, if memory serves.  Hardly a stick you could beat the 17th cent.
>with.


Nope. The Jews were expelled from England in 1290 after one of the
Blood Libles (York or Lincoln, I forget which.) Jews returned to
England around 1650-60. Interesting story, involving conversion
attempts, the discovery of the Americas (and their inhabitants) and
the end of the world. Some Spanish crypto-Jews lived in England before
that, though. Cromwell supported the restoration of the Jews, but the ban
was never (if I'm not mistaken) offically lifted. But the Jews
returned and have been there ever since.


-- 
Scott Wells                        +  You put *sugar* in your grits !
Internet: wells@athena.cs.uga.edu  + 
University of Georgia		   +  Get behind me Satan !
Athens, Georgia, USA               +  
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: jac54@cas.org ()
Subject: A few lines for the 11th
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:51:27 GMT

	A few lines from Siegfried Sassoon to remind us why we
	remember Armistice Day.

	Alec

	Repression of War Experience

	Now light the candles; one; two, there's a moth;
	What silly beggars they are to blunder in
	And scorch their wings with glory, liquid flame -
	No, no, not that, - it's bad to think of war,
	When thoughts you've gagged all day come back to scare you;
	And it's been proved that soldiers don't go mad
	Unless they lose control of ugly thoughts
	That drive them out to jabber among the trees.

	Now light your pipe; look, what a steady hand.
	Draw a deep breath; stop thinking; count fifteen,
	And you're as right as rain...
				      Why won't it rain?...
	I wish there'd be a thunderstorm tonight,
	With bucketsful full of water to sluice the dark,
	and make the roses hang their dripping heads.
	Books; what a jolly company they are,
	Standing so quiet and patient on their shelves,
	Dressed in dim brown, and black, and white, and green,
	And every kind of colour.  Which will you read?
	Come on; O _do_ read something; they're so wise.
	I tell you all the wisdom of the world
	Is waiting for you on those shelves; and yet
	You sit and gnaw your nails, and let your pipe out,
	And listen to the silence: on the ceiling
	Ther's one big, dizzy moth that bumps and flutters ;
	And in the breathless air outside the house
	The garden waits for something that delays.
	There must be crowds of ghosts among the trees, -
	Not people killed in battle, -they're in France, -
	But horrible shapes in shrouds - old men who died
	Slow, natural deaths, -old men with ugly souls,
	Who wore their bodies out with nasty sins.
	You're quiet and peaceful, summering safe at home;
	You'd never think there was a bloody war on!...
	O yes, you would... why, you can hear the guns.
	Hark! Thud, thud, thud, quite soft... they never cease-
	Those whispering guns - O Christ, I want to go out
	And screech at them to stop - I'm going crazy;
	I'm going stark staring mad because of those guns.
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Crime rates in Britain compared
Date: 11 Nov 92 23:55:30 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <1992Nov11.121441.17722@cas.org> jac54@cas.org writes:
>In article <-1835767285@trsvax> cls@trsvax.tandy.com writes:
>>
>>
>>Have any of you ever seen statistics showing crime rates in Britain
>>compared to crime rates in the U.S.?  I've been wondering about this.
>>Since there are almost no guns there and since I live near Dallas,
>>which is the murder capital of the U.S., Britain seems like it surely
>>must be a wonderful place to live as far as crime is concerned.
>>Or could it be that Britain has just as much crime, minus crimes
>>committed with guns?  Even that surely must be much better.
>>
>
>	About 18 months ago, the "Economist" observed that property
>	crime rates in some areas of Britain were approaching those
>	in the U.S.  The murder rate per head of population is about
>	12-fold higher in the U.S. than it is in the U.K.
>
>	Killing with guns is unusual in Britain, usually a kitchen knife,
>	18th. Century marble bust of some magnate, or some other
>	blunt object is used.
>
>	Alec.

I remember seeing these statistics in The Economist some while ago:

                  violent deaths per 100,000 per year

Northern Ireland                 3
El Salvador                     40
Washington, DC                  80
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: matthew@uk.tele.nokia.fi (Matthew Faupel)
Subject: Re: East Anglia Polytechnic - still exist???
Organization: Nokia Telecommunications, Cambridge, UK
	<1992Nov10.104906.14045@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 18:48:59 GMT

MH: Matthew Huntbach in article <1992Nov10.104906.14045@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>
AO: aoaass@registry.adelaide.edu.au

AO: Just need to find outwhether Anglia Polytechnic still exists or whether it
AO: has changed its name. Suggestion that now is called Chelmer Institute of
AO: higher Education. One of my fellow uni administrators needs to know for a
AO: qualification check.

MH: Your suggestion is certainly wrong. A "polytechnic" would be
MH: rated more prestigious than an "Institute of Higher Education",
MH: if anything the renaming would be the other way round. Are you
MH: sure that is not in fact the case with your qualification check
MH: (was Chelmer, is now Anglia). On the other hand, following a
MH: recent piece of legislation, polytechnics have been allowed
MH: to call themselves "Universities", and as this is even more
MH: prestigious, most (all?) of them have had a name change
MH: to <something> University. A number of institutions have successively
MH: changed from "Institutes of Higher Education" to "Polytechnics" to
MH: "Universities" within five years or so, each change involving
MH: nothing more than a few new signs being painted and a change in
MH: headed notepaper. So it may well be "was Chelmer, then Anglia,
MH: then ... (maybe just Anglia University)".

Many years ago there was an institution in Cambridge called CCAT (pronounced
Seacat) otherwise known as the Cambridge(shire?) College of Arts and
Technology.  However, for some reason known only to them, they were not
happy with this name and so changed it to Anglia Higher Education College.

Within a couple of years though, they decided to merge with a couple of
other HECs in and around the East Anglia region (including the above
mentioned Chelmer) to become Anglia Polytechnic.  Now, with the recent
legislation on conversion from polytechnics to universities, it is called
Anglia Polytechnic University (to avoid confusion with the University of
East Anglia I guess).

So, the institution to apply to for the check is Anglia Polytechnic
University, however the approximate periods between name changes have been
3, 2 and 1 years respectively, so I'd hurry because it looks like it's due
to change again very soon... :-)


Matthew
--
---* Amnesiac the Wizard *------------------* matthew@uk.tele.nokia.fi *---
 Opinions expressed here are not those of my company.    | NB. ntl02 is EN
 They're not even my own; I plagiarised the lot of them! | TEE EL ZERO TWO
---* matthew@ntl02.decnet.nokia.fi *------------------* Matthew Faupel *---
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines)
Subject: Re: Just a quick question
Originator: nickh@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<6NOV199217314279@sscvx1.ssc.gov> <BxD4E7.Dtp.1@cs.cmu.edu>
	<1992Nov9.095753.12917@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 16:55:23 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.095753.12917@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:

   Linguists have suggested that "fuck" comes from a root word
   meaning "strike" while "shit" comes from a root word meaning
   "split" (don't know about "fart" though). Both were originally
   euphemistic.

Boggle. Still, I stand by my assertion that it's not euphemistic now.
I also think `having sex' is sufficiently non-euphemistic for this
point (the DSS don't much care what sort of sex you have).

On the other hand, I think that the DSS _do_ count sharing a bed, for
whatever reason (shared bodily warmth?), as `living together as man
and wife', while I guess they wouldn't care (or, more importantly,
know) if you were bonking away in the park (or wherever) so maybe
`sleeping together' is closest after all.

Nick Haines nickh@cmu.edu
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: The amazing disappearing British Const
Date: 10 Nov 1992 23:26:47 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com


In article <1doo9jINNls9@grapevine.EBay.Sun.COM>, martin.baines@uk.sun.com writes:
> >
> >I for one would appreciate a good modern reference to the British Constitution.
> >Any offers?
> 
> So would I, most of my opinions on the matter come from Bagehot modified
> by articles in the "quality press" and Radio 4 features...

Two I have, "A Constitutional and Legal History of England".
Smith M.   Dorset Press. 1990.

For transcripts of some of the original documents "Documents
of Liberty", Marsh H.   David and Charles (Publishers) 1971.

jon.
From: aoaass@registry.adelaide.edu.au
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: East Anglia Polytechnic - still exist???
Date: 10 Nov 92 12:56:11 ACST
Organization: Office of the Registry, University of Adelaide
NNTP-Posting-Host: admin.registry.adelaide.edu.au

Just need to find outwhether Anglia Polytechnic still exists or whether it has
changed its name. Suggestion that now is called Chelmer Institute of higher
Education. One of my fellow uni administrators needs to know for a
qualification check.

Send personal email to aoaass@admin.adelaide.edu.au

Ross Karavis
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: sp@osf.org (Simon Patience)
Subject: Re: Rule Britannia
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 08:33:47 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.153006.13711@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>, mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
> From: dk0a@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (DIMITRIOS KOUVATSOS)
> >> What the hell are you Brits ashamed of?
[ Actually I wrote this next bit ]
> >Well, we had a bad start. Once we had stopped stealing the wealth of other
> >countries like the Victorians use to do, we found life a bit harder.
> 
> I suspect the self-deprecation is something of a reaction to
> the ridiculousness of late imperial pretensions, though I agree
> with you that it sometimes goes over the top - it is most
> certainly wrong, for example, to see the British Empire purely
> in terms of "stealing wealth".

Alright, I admit it, I answered hyperbole with hyperbole. Guilty as
charged.

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
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: dave.gullick@rose.com (dave gullick)
Subject: Re: Salaries+cost of
Organization: Rose Media Inc, Toronto, Ontario.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 00:07:43 GMT
X-Gated-By: Usenet <==> RoseMail Gateway (v1.70)


Date Entered: 11-05-92 19:03
Subject: Re: Salaries+cost of living in UK
dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks) writes:
D(B:>godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE GODFREY) writes:
D(B:>|> A decent contract job in the UK should pay at least  1000 per week
D(B:>                                                       ^
D(B:>I'm looking at a genuine sterling symbol.  This is in an article that has
D(B:>survived 8 hops -- and I thought most sites still stripped the 8th bit.
D(B:>For the record, it's octal 243.  Commiserations if *you* have lost the 8th

I'm afraid your sterling symbol appears a little tarnished here.
Don't panic tho', now the Mastricht Treaty is ratified, I'm sure some
kindly Germanic will either beat the Sterling Pound symbol into the
required shape or simply polish it off.
Incidentally, it appears as a lower case accented "u", on my fANSI system,
which is to be expected from Hex A3.
------------------------------------
dave.gullick@rose.com
---
   RM 2.00 : RoseNet<=>Usenet Gateway : Rose Media 416-733-2285
From: matt@castle.ed.ac.uk (M P Taylor)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Just a quick question
Date: 11 Nov 92 10:33:54 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <1992Nov9.095753.12917@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
>>It is? In what way is `fuck' euphemistic? I thought it was
>>straight-forward, like `fart' or `shit'.
>Linguists have suggested that "fuck" comes from a root word
>meaning "strike" while "shit" comes from a root word meaning
>"split" (don't know about "fart" though). Both were originally
>euphemistic.
>
I'm sorry to do this to a namesake but bollox again Matthew!

There is nothing euphemistic about fuck. A euphemism is when 'an
inoffensive word or phrase is substituted for one considered offensive
or hurtful'.

Now since when is fuck inoffensive?

The derivation of fuck I have always heard is from police in Victorian
London stamping F U C K on the charge sheets of prostitutes. Ie for
unlawful carnal knowledge.

This acronym makes far more sense to me than some Middle Dutch 16th
century word fokken meaning to strike.

	Yours etc,

		Matt
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: Britain doesn't have a Constitution (Re: An astonishing Guy)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 21:15:32 GMT

smckinty@sunicnc.France.Sun.COM (Steve McKinty - Sun ICNC) writes:

: > of recent British laws which have been set aside by the courts as being
: > "unconstitutional".   Perhaps your year of legal study covered this?
: > 
: > If there aren't any, then the British constitution isn't worth the paper
: > that it isn't written on.
: 
: Then again it might just indicate the the British Parliament have the
: wit not to pass unconstitutional laws...

Or , it may be that their courts which rule on such things are not as   
politically motivated as the US courts. It appears that the US Supreme
court is capable of interpreting the Constitution to mean just about
anything they wish. 

Bill
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:15203 soc.culture.canada:8300
From: godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE GODFREY)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: In your school?
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:53:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: sscvx1.5NOV199215535941
Organization: Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <1992Nov5.140247.27468@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA>, bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross) writes...
>migod@turing.toronto.edu (Mike Godfrey) writes:
>: In article <5NOV199203010964@sscvx1.ssc.gov> godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE GODFREY) writes:
>: >>>So Canada stands twice condemned - it has to hire mediocre
>: >>>Brits and it does so because it can't produce anything less mediocre itself.
>: >> 
>: >>And occasionally Canada realizes its mistakes and refuses grants to
>: >>particularly mediocre Brits.
>: >
>: >As I've told you on at least one occasion, I have NOT been refused a grant
>: >by Canada (I don't know where you got this idea from).  I repeat, I had 
>: >a dispute with your laughable National Research Council who employed me
>: >and quit my job with them in 1987.  Check if you wish.
>: 
>: Now why on earth would you think I was referring to you?
>: Hit a nerve, have I?
> 
>Oh no! The dual personalities are fighting it out again!
>Hopefully there might be a third paternal personality inside the
>Godfrey Entity who might mediate between Mike and his unstable 
>counterpart Laurence.
> 
>The drama continues...
> 
This is Yvette Godfrey - I'm not a paternal personality, not having the
right sex, but I will mediate in this.  In my country, the Philippines,
we shoot people like Laurence for his forthright views, but on the other
hand we haven't got any time for boring non-entities like Mike who cannot
see beyond the end of their statusquos.

Yvette
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE GODFREY)
Subject: Re: Salaries+cost of living in UK
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Organization: Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 09:14:00 GMT

In article <S2QSBBVM@cc.swarthmore.edu>, ment@cs.swarthmore.edu (Andrew Ment)      writes...
>ajj@zycor.lgc.com (Andrew Jackson) writes:
> 
>>Hello all,
> 
>>I am asking this question on behalf of my dad. He is a contract
>>programmer and has an opportunity to work for someone in Windsor
>>(I have forgotten for whom). The contract would last nine months.
> 
>>Could somebody out there clue me in about Windsor and vicinity? Is
>>housing readily available? If so, where would be a good place to
>>look? Should my parents bother with a car? Questions about basic
>>living in Windsor (if there is such a thing).
> 
>>Thanks in advance!
> 
>>========================================================================
>>Andrew J. Jackson                     voice: 512-282-6969
>>Landmark/Zycor, Inc.                  fax  : 512-280-6731
>>220 Foremost Dr.                      email: ajackson@zycor.lgc.com
>>Austin, TX 78745
>>========================================================================
> 
>there's this lovely castle just down the road ...
> 
>ment@cs.swarthmore.edu

I can give a little more help than that.  Windsor is just a short distance
from London (maybe 30 miles or so from centre of London), and contains one
of the queen's most impressive castles.  It is a rich area - house prices
are expensive, rents are quite high, but cheaper than much of London.
It is very quaint - tea shops (real ones - not the sort you get in the
Far east!!).  Americans like it - the British mostly find it snobby and
full of reactionaries.  It's a good place to live for a year or so if
you come from the US, but you might find it boring if you're under 50.

I would need a car, to get away and to drive around the local countryside
(which is quite pleasant), so would you and your father.  You don't
really need one to drive into London, but it would certainly be nicer
than using the trains.  At the present exchange rate he and you would find it 
expensive in the UK, and especially expensive in Windsor.  UK and US prices 
have parity at around 1.2 $ to the pound, and at present it is 1.56.  House
prices have parity at around $1 to the pound or less.

A decent contract job in the UK should pay at least 1000 per week for
9 months duration, plus travel, settling in, relocation etc.  If he's
getting less he may find it disappointing.

regards Laurence
From: cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Chris Cooke)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Accent and Dialect, the politics there
Date: 12 Nov 92 17:44:47 GMT
	<A.Grant.16.721163002@ucs.cam.ac.uk>
	<1992Nov8.205021.21238@philmtl.philips.ca>
	<A.Grant.20.721307237@ucs.cam.ac.uk>
	<1992Nov10.175946.22711@gssec.bt.co.uk>
	<A.Grant.28.721489
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

In article <A.Grant.28.721489819@ucs.cam.ac.uk> A.Grant@ucs.cam.ac.uk (Alasdair Grant) writes:

   No, I implied that pushing Scots and Gaelic into the service of national
   identity might _make_ English despised. I'd lay bets that the more extreme
   Welsh or Quebec nationalists would be prepared to say that they despise 
   English.

This would never affect more than a loony minority, surely - say, a small
minority of those who voted for independence at the last election - so it's
not a serious consideration.  Learning good standard English makes great
economic sense, apart from anything else, and I don't think anybody on this
list is arguing against the learning of good English at all.
--
	-- Chris. 	cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk   (on Janet, cc@uk.ac.ed.dcs)

		
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:15382 alt.folklore.urban:27721