HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Democracy?????
Date: 14 Apr 92 11:01:45 GMT
Reply-To: gdb15@cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK

In article <6275@bigbird.hri.com.hri.com> limey@hri.com writes:

>80% of the people that could vote, did. That mean 20% of the people didn't
>get off their bottoms and exercise their right to choose their
>Government. Even if a fraction of 1% of these people voted for Labour
>(or the LDP etc....), then the results would have been quite different.

No they wouldn't; the 80% turnout was broadly uniform across the
country, so if 1% of the remaining 20% had turned out to vote and all
voted Labour it would have produced an additional swing of (1/2 * 1% *
20%) = 0.1% to Labour, which would have made virtually no difference
to the result.  Your statement only makes sense if you assume a
scenario where all the additional people who turned out to vote were
in a handful of marginal constituencies.

--
Guy Barry	Phone: +44 (0)223 334757 | University of Cambridge
		  Fax: +44 (0)223 334678 | Computer Laboratory   
	   JANET: Guy.Barry@uk.ac.cam.cl | New Museums Site, Pembroke Street
        Internet: Guy.Barry@cl.cam.ac.uk | Cambridge CB2 3QG, England, UK
From: spinoza@next03wor.wam.umd.edu (Prince Lev of the Domovoi)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Why should Libya hand over the PanAm bombers?
Date: 7 Apr 92 00:30:06 GMT
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park

In article <STEINLY.92Apr6161722@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu  
(Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
> In article <NICKH.92Apr3121309@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU> nickh@CS.CMU.EDU  
(Nick Haines) writes:
> 
>    In article <1992Apr3.162536.6929@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>  
bobv@spike.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Bob von Buelow) writes:
>       In article <NICKH.92Apr2190242@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU>  
nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines) writes:
> 
> 
>    As someone else pointed out, acts committed outside the US _cannot_  
be
>    properly tried in a US criminal court.
> 
I'm not a lawyer, but I remember reading somewhere that US flag carriers,  
of which Pan Am was one, are considered US territory, or that the US has  
jurisdiction over crimes committed on US flag carriers.


lev
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,soc.culture.celtic
From: cockburn@majors.enet.dec.com (Craig Cockburn)
Subject: Re: Thoughts on Election Results
Organization: Digital Equipment Co. Ltd., Newbury, England
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 09:13:00 GMT


In article <10APR199221210338@zeus.tamu.edu>, pac9897@zeus.tamu.edu (SO MUCH FOR DEMOCRACY IN BRITAIN) writes...
>In article <1992Apr10.070851.2795@rdg.dec.com>, cockburn@majors.enet.dec.com (Craig Cockburn) writes...
>> 
>>The situation in England was never in much doubt, England is probably going
>>to be Tory with a big majority for decades. 
>> 
>>However, the Conservatives still have a tiny number of MPs in Scotland,
>>and so the constitutional question there still remains. 
>>We wait to see if the Claim of Right 1988 is to be invoked.
> 
>You may remember a few moons ago I was poo-pooing the idea of Scottish
>independence (but no devolution) because I thought it impractical.
>Well, having yet again watched those stupid fools in the South of England
>(and it is overwhelmingly the South) I can see no reason, no matter
>how impractical seperation may seem, that the Scots should be denied the
>right to have a government whose party they have voted for for the last
>4 times.

Following on from my comments yesterday, The Times reports on a similar
theme:

The Times, 11-Apr, P7

Scottish Backlash - MP demands action to disrupt Commons

Labour's frustration at failing to win power at Westminster boiled over
in Scotland with calls from prominent party members and MPs for civil
disobedience and deals with the Scottish National Party to form an
anti-tory coalition.

George Galloway, Labour MP for Glasgow Hillhead said "We must extend the
hand of friendship to the SNP. We must unite the anti-Conservative forces
in Scotland. Three our of four Scots have rejected the Tories again.
If we mobilise we can disrupt Parliament"

A resurgence of Scottish Labour Action, the pro-nationalist pressure
group which opposed the poll tax is expected. John McAllion, MP for
Dundee East said that playing by Westminster rules was no longer an option
for Labour in Scotland, which had been left powerless yet holding 49
seats compared with the Tories' 11.

Mr McAllion said that the Constitutional Convention should be used as 
the vehicle to unite all opposition parties demanding constitutional
change.

Yesterday, the Tories were describing their 11 seats as a victory,
although 5 years ago they conceded that their acheivement then of
10 seats was a disaster.

The SNP have not ruled out the possibility of civil disobedience.

There are district elections in Scotland on May 7. Perhaps 
some strategy will be forthcoming by then - CC


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Craig Cockburn, Digital Equipment Co. Ltd, Newbury, England.  
  ARPAnet: cockburn@majors.enet.dec.com                            Saor
  UUCP:..!decwrl!majors.enet.dec.com!cockburn                      Alba!

  Views here are my own, and are not necessarily those of Digital
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:6185 soc.culture.celtic:3520
From: smaill@aisb.ed.ac.uk (Alan Smaill)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: Thoughts on Election Results: Scotland.
Date: 12 Apr 92 21:57:57 GMT
	<10APR199221210338@zeus.tamu.edu> <1992Apr11.092810.17344@rdg.dec.com>
	<1992Apr12.080212.11573@leland.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Apr12.192056.968@rdg.dec.com>
Organization: DAI, University of Edinburgh

In article <1992Apr12.192056.968@rdg.dec.com> cockburn@majors.enet.dec.com (Craig Cockburn) writes:

   With devolution, Scotland would still send Labour
   MPs to Westminster to vote on UK wide issues. For those of you
   worried about the West Lothian question, these MPs would not be 
   allowed to vote on English only issues.

I am not aware that this is the official policy of the constitutional
convention - indeed, I thought that Neil Kinnock had explicitly rejected
this idea. 

You can see why it would be a problem if the Education Minister found
all his English legislation blocked because there was a majority
against him in England and Wales, for example.

Does the convention have a policy on this?  I can't see Labour agreeing to
it.

--
Alan Smaill,                       JANET: A.Smaill@uk.ac.ed             
Department of Artificial           ARPA:  A.Smaill%uk.ac.ed@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
       Intelligence,               UUCP:  ...!uknet!ed.ac.uk!A.Smaill
Edinburgh University.
From: livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: British Bill: of Rights? of Goods?
Date: 14 Apr 92 09:24:04 GMT
Organization: sgi

In article <1992Apr14.084351.5968@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker) writes:
|> In article <jh63hps@zola.esd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> >In article <1992Apr13.142400.20476@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker) writes:
|> >|> 
|> >|> If you don't have a written Constitution that requires some kind
|> >|> of super-majority to amend, then what is there to stop the current
|> >|> government from changing the election rules any which way it wants 
|> >
|> >They'd have to amend the Representation of the People Act (I think), 
|> >which they could do if they had a large enough majority, and could 
|> >enforce the whip.  It's been amended several times, usually to extend
|> >the franchise (1918) or to reduce the voting age (1969).
|> 
|> That was my question: what does a "large enough majority" mean?

They'd have to have enough of a majority that the defection of some
government members left them with a majority.   If what they proposed 
was really obnoxious, what we might loosely refer to as "unconstitutional", 
I think you could depend on some government MPs simply to refuse the 
whip.  If all else fails, it's up to the Queen.   That would be delicate,
but after all, that's why we pay her the big bucks.

|> 
|> >The Government does do things unilaterally.  It declares States
|> >of Emergency, for example.  Now tell me the US Government never
|> >does things unilaterally.
|> 
|> I was referring more to election rules than to things like states
|> of emergency.  I am not sure what you mean by "unilaterally"; rules
|> that are actually specified in the U.S. Constitution itself can only
|> be changed by following the amendment process.

Ah, and how do you feel about locking up the Nisei, and separate
but equal, or Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus?  Come to think
of it, wasn't Noriega's communication with his lawyer bugged, and
isn't there supposed to be some guy locked away in solitary so that
he can't finger Quayle?   

I'm not setting out to be gratuitously rude about the US, by the way.   
All this and more has happened in most countries.    I'm just still 
arguing against the notion that a written Constitution immunizes you 
against such high jinks.   It bothers me when a Government locks up
a minority first (1941) and then gets the Court to cover it with a 
fig leaf retrospectively.   Makes me wonder what the Constitution's 
role really is.

jon.
From: smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Farewell to Kinnock
Date: 15 Apr 92 15:51:29 GMT
Reply-To: P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Organization: University of Bristol

In article <1992Apr15.033939.10350@cc.uow.edu.au> jlloyd@cc.uow.edu.au (Jonathan Lloyd) writes:
>Unfortunately for those that don't like it, most of the people in the UK do 
>live in the SE of England. As I understand it they have felt the recession
>more (relatively speaking since they are generally wealthier) than the rest 
>of the UK.

Depends on when you define the 'recession' as having started.  For
quite a long time, the SE was doing pretty all right, and things got
worse as you moved North and/or West.  The 'first wave' appears to have
hit most savagely outside of the SE.  However, the most recent 'wave'
appears to be biting the SE more harshly -- maybe only because there is
more left down there to bite.  It is also possible to argue that this
is simply a result of standard 'capitalist rebalancing'.

Depression in the NW means there is a larger available labour pool,
property is cheaper, and because the cost of living is lower you can
get away with lower salaries.  There's some evidence that the current
downward trend in the SE might be caused, in part, by companies
deciding that the differentials are great enough that it is cost
effective to move away from the SE, even bearing in mind the costs of
the move.  Lloyd's Bank is in the process of moving a large part of its
central operations to Bristol, for example.  I'm sure I've heard of
other companies doing similar things, but Lloyd's is the only one I'm
prepared to swear to.

-- 
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: jmb@ukc.ac.uk (J.M.Bremner)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: News from Ambridge (was Re: Gas stoves)
Date: 13 Apr 92 19:41:19 GMT
Reply-To: jmb@ukc.ac.uk (Mike Bremner)
Organization: Institute of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Kent

In article <1992Apr12.170353.4784@osf.org> dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks) writes:

>Talking of farming, has Shula farrowed yet?

No, but Elizabeth is pregnant.  Cameron Fraser (Frazer?) did it.
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:6139 alt.politics.british:5
From: EY28@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.politics.british
Subject: Re: Rampant paranoia (was Voting slips: what happens to them,DANGER!)
Date: 7 Apr 92 11:39:35 GMT
 <4521@m1.cs.man.ac.uk><1992Apr5.125422.24318@bradford.ac.uk>
Organization: University of Liverpool

Interesting stuff this voting slip scam.

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

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

Hmmmmmmmm!

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

Andy Calder.
From: axd7104@acfcluster.nyu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Thoughts on Election Results
Date: 10 Apr 92 04:49:47 GMT
Organization: New York University

Yes, it's confirmed.  The Tories have won a "Small, but workable,
majority," according to the BBC World Service.  Thank God.

Though, they were speculating that this is the beginning of the end for
Neil Kinnock.  That's not any fun.  First Thatcher is gone, then 
Bernard Weatherill retires, and now Kinnock might be gone.  Watching
Question Time on C-Span is going to be quite depressing from here on.

I do have to admit though, that it was fun hearing those ballot-counters
reading off the words "Monster Raving Loony Party" with a straight
face.

-- 
Aaron Dickey                      Bitnet: axd7104@nyuacf
New York University             Internet: axd7104@ACFcluster.nyu.edu

Al Roker Is God.
From: allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: American view of the Election
Date: 15 Apr 92 16:14:27 GMT
Organization: Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana

In article <1992Apr8.130549.6608@newcastle.ac.uk>, Trevor.Kirby@newcastle.ac.uk (Trevor Kirby) writes:
> 
> In article <11097@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>, skywalker@DINO.QCI.BIOCH.BCM.TMC.EDU (Timothy B. Reynolds) writes:
>>>>
>>
>>Very true, much more is at stake like the future of your country. Also
>>true, its your country but some in the US would hate to see the UK go
>>down the drain. Can you say capital flight ?
>>
> Ahh I see now, so the argument has come round to vote tory because the USA will
> lose out if you don't.  Well it's probably about par with most of the reasons
> the politicians have given out over the last few weeks, and will be ignored for
> exactly that reason.
> 
	More like US businesses are likely to pull out of the UK. Capital 
flight (US capital) from the UK. I'm not in favor of the tories (the 
Official Secrets act is rather offensive), but he's got a point.
	-Allen
From: livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: MAJOR WINS MAJORITY!!!
Organization: sgi
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 01:44:42 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.132436.5010@bristol.ac.uk>, smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee) writes:
|> In article <jh56qek@zola.esd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> >In article <1992Apr13.095502.8241@bristol.ac.uk>, smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee) writes:
|> >|> Thirteen years ago, the UK was near the top of most comparative EEC
|> >|> tables; now it's near the bottom.
|> >
|> >Would you care to post some data to support the first of those
|> >claims?
|> 
|> Well, it's not my field, which means I don't keep refs lying around,
|> but I'll see what I can find.  (If anyone here actually DOES have the
|> data right at hand, sure wouldn't hurt my feelings if you put it in
|> before I find it.)

If you don't have the figures, why be so precise?   Why "thirteen"
years, for example?

jon.
From: J.W.Harley@newcastle.ac.uk (Jon Harley)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Emmigration after the Tory win on April 9th
Date: 13 Apr 92 09:53:59 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

pac9897@zeus.tamu.edu (SO MUCH FOR DEMOCRACY IN BRITAIN) writes:

>I was just thinking, all of my British friends (with one or two exceptions)
>who are at university were considering emmigration now that it has
>become clear that our democracy no longer functions properly.
>Is this the start of another brain drain?
>I myself want to leave as soon as my degree is over, unless J.Major is
>substantially different to his first shot at the top.
>
>Surely this is a hollow win for the Tories if everyone who didn't vote
>for them is so sick of it all that they want to leave?

No, because that would leave an even higher proportion of tory voters next
time round.

>So who else is for bailing out before the rats drag down the ship of state?

Me.
Remember the news story that Jim Davidson, Andrew Lloyd Weber et al
were planning to leave the country if Labour won? Well, did they buy their
tickets in advance? If so I'll volunteer to make use of one of them.


/jon
   _________________________________________________________________
  / -- Jonathan Harley  ____   One cannot be precise and           //    //  //
 / J.W.Harley@ncl.ac.uk \bi/  still be pure.      --Marc Chagall  // // //////
/_x8504_____B2t+w-g+svrp \/ __________________________________///////////  //
From: nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: dweeb?
Date: 13 Apr 92 17:36:07 GMT
	<1992Apr8.185101.10857@husc3.harvard.edu>
	<1992Apr10.153946.17825@sun.pcl.ac.uk>
	<1992Apr12.002852.21905@cs.yale.edu>
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: nickh@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

In article <1992Apr12.002852.21905@cs.yale.edu> horne-scott@CS.YALE.EDU (Scott Horne) writes:

   In article <1992Apr10.153946.17825@sun.pcl.ac.uk>, marcus@sun.pcl.ac.uk (Marcus Harvey) writes:
   <
   <I've always held the belief that the reason you spell "centre" c-e-n-t-e-r
   <and suchlike is because the original settlers were better with a spade and a
   <plough than a pen and paper...

   Fortunately, not everyone in this country fits that characterisation (note
   the correct spelling--no `z'). 

Read a dictionary. I suggest the OED.

Nick Haines nickh@cs.cmu.edu
From: gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Newsgroups: uk.politics,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Can YOU predict the election outcome? - **RESULTS**
Date: 13 Apr 92 15:49:24 GMT
Reply-To: gdb15@cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK

In article <1992Apr13.115327.25550@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:

>Congratulations to Ian.Taylor.
>
>However I notice that only Ian.Taylor and Lionel Tun predicted that
>the Conservatives would have an outright majority. I think ranking
>should reflect this, the most important consideration, and suggest
>that rank is based on the accuracy of the Conservative/Labour ratio
>prediction.

As you wish, Lionel...

Actual ratio    Actual seats
Con/Lab         Con Lab  LD SNP  
1.239852    	336 271  20   3  

Pred.  Error    Predicted seats
ratio		Con Lab  LD SNP  Sender
1.083 -0.157  * 327 302  17   5  Ian.Taylor@rcvie.co.at (Ian Taylor)
1.076 -0.164    311 289  24   4  Philip Evans <pj_evans@csd.brispoly.ac.uk>
1.000 -0.240  * 288 288  65  10  S.H.L.G.Bisson@gdr.bath.ac.uk
0.977 -0.263    296 303  23   8  Guy.Barry@cl.cam.ac.uk
0.963 -0.276    290 301  33  10  per@aber.ac.uk
0.960 -0.280    290 302  27   8  Paul Norris <pm3_norr@csd.brispoly.ac.uk>
0.938 -0.302  * 241 257 124  29  Richard Marshall <lah014@cck.coventry.ac.uk>
0.937 -0.303  * 296 316  29   6  Stephen Wilcox <WILCOX@VAX.OXFORD.AC.UK>
0.922 -0.318  * 296 321  24   7  nroworth@nl.oracle.com (Nick Roworth)
0.921 -0.319    290 315  15  10  Nick Haines <nickh@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU>
0.896 -0.344  * 285 318  23  13  Jon Harley <J.W.Harley@newcastle.ac.uk>
0.859 -0.381    280 326  19   9  Simon Brock-Gunn <simon@cs.city.ac.uk>
0.831 -0.409  * 270 325  36  20  Richard Boardman <boardman@inmos.co.uk>
1.705 +0.465  * 375 220  40   4  Lionel Tun <lionel@cs.city.ac.uk>
0.760 -0.479    254 334  36   5  dshone@chad.CV.NRAO.EDU (Dave Shone)

Yes, seems much fairer.

I've also marked with an asterisk those who predicted more than 634 seats,
who in my view should be disqualified.  (The fact that this procedure
puts me in second place is of course irrelevant.)  I offer my hearty
congratulations to Philip Evans, who was the only person to get anywhere
near the right result.
--
Guy Barry	Phone: +44 (0)223 334757 | University of Cambridge
		  Fax: +44 (0)223 334678 | Computer Laboratory   
	   JANET: Guy.Barry@uk.ac.cam.cl | New Museums Site, Pembroke Street
        Internet: Guy.Barry@cl.cam.ac.uk | Cambridge CB2 3QG, England, UK
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: francis@oas.stanford.edu (Francis Muir)
Subject: Re: Sponge bag
Organization: Stanford Exploration Project
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 15:52:32 GMT

Chris Dalton writes:

	A sponge bag is a small waterproof bag for holding a soggy 
	washcloth, soap, toothbrush, etc.

This posting, and others like, are missing the point. There was a derived
meaning. Better sponge-bags (Trumper's, the Gentlemen's Hairdressers, would 
have been a good source) were often patterned in a fine, black-and-white,
fine houndstooth check. When loosely fitting trousers came into vogue after
WWI they were often made from a like looking fabric, and these trousers then
came to be known as "sponge-bags." It is my belief that this expression then
got modified to "Oxford bags", since it was there that they first came into
fashion.

							Francis Muir

francis@sep.stanford.edu

						Was I the only Netter
						who voted for Sutch?
From: johne@apricot.co.uk (John Edge)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Screaming Lord Sutch (was Monster Raving Loony)
Date: 6 Apr 92 16:32:49 GMT
Organization: Apricot Computers Limited

>ianf@aifh.ed.ac.uk (Ian Frank) writes:
>> Where can we get copies of the Monster Raving Loony election 
>> manifesto?

I haven't seen a copy of the manifesto but my local newspaper reports
that the main issues that the party stands on are:

1) Reducing the waiting lists for National Health Service treatment:
   Bed-sharing for patients will be introduced. This should also improve
   the mood of patients and provide an easily available form of exercise.

2) Extending the scope of the dangerous dogs act:
   This will be extended to include dangerous politicians. Any M.P.s 
   covered in the new act will have to be muzzled before being allowed
   out in public places.

3) Providing a minister for pets.

The campaign poster for this election includes a picture of John Major,
Paddy Ashdown and Neil Kinnock wearing jesters hats with the slogan 
'Vote for an OFFICIAL loony - mONsTeR RaVinG lOOny pArTy'

I do not know if the defence policy has changed from the last election
but it was then to reduce defence costs and mistakes by re-introducing
tried,tested and proven equipment - such as the Spitfire that was so
successful in 1940.

Maybe the other parties could learn a thing or two?

John Edge
Newsgroups: uk.politics,soc.culture.british
From: francis@oas.stanford.edu (Francis Muir)
Subject: Re: Can YOU predict the election outcome? - **RESULTS**
Organization: Stanford Exploration Project
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 15:22:14 GMT

Simon Brock-Gunn writes:

	Lionel Tun writes:

		Congratulations to Ian.Taylor. However I notice that 
		only Ian.Taylor and Lionel Tun predicted that

	Isn't this you, Lionel?  I think you should declare your interest 
	here.  Or are you getting into practice for running as a Tory MP 
	in the next election?

What's your problem, Brock-Gunn? He signed the posting. There was no
subterfuge. in fact, your own statistical methods leave something to
be desired. The idea that (in paraphrase) "it was OK to include late
comers because they were wildly wrong anyway" is a totally unacceptable
procedure. 

						Francis Muir

francis@sep.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Major bitten by rabid dog!
From: miranker@husc8.harvard.edu (Andrew Miranker)
Date: 16 Apr 92 22:27:43 EDT
Distribution: world
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

Hello,

I am moving to the UK for a couple of years. I was wondering if someone
might answer a question for me.

Why does the British gov. quarantine imported pets for 6 months when
the incubation period for rabies is about 3 weeks?  Why do they charge
800 pounds sterling for this service?
I appreciate that the Brits believe that there are no 
rabid animals in their country and therefore would prohibit the importation
of pets; however, the british quarantine policy seems to allow only the rich
and inhumane to bring their animals.

Andrew
miranker@tammy.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.politics.british,soc.culture.european