HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cmh004@cck.coventry.ac.uk (Dave)
Subject: Re: Can the Prime Minster be Catholic?
Organization: Lanchester Polytechnic
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 11:37:10 GMT

In article <lfqsm6INNa86@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> linden@positive.Eng.Sun.COM (Trelford Pinkerton) writes:
>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.

Even though a RC can become Prime Minister, but under another law a RC cannot
help in the filling of the various vacancies which may exist in the Church of
England. I presume in the event of a RC PM he will pass on the job of selecting
CofE bishops to his deputy. 
Anyone in England who is interested your local CofE church appoints 2 Church
Wardens (people who keep the church building in good nick), but because many
years ago they had extensive civic powers as well, because of this anyone
who lives in the parish may vote for their Church Warden. The only bunch of
people who would be barred from voting in the election of Church Warden
would be Roman Catholics. I mean a Hindu or a Muslim can vote for a CofE
Church Warden.
One minor point I say almost every week "...we believe in one holy, catholic
and apostolic church...". So in this respect I consider myself to be an
Anglo-Catholic, but I am not a Roman Catholic. So don't use the term catholic
when you mean Roman Catholic.
-- 
Dave                                                       cmh004@cck.cov.ac.uk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Call this place what you like - Coventry University, Coventry Polytechnic or
Lanchester Polytechnic it is all the same and is called school.
From: martin.baines@uk.sun.com (Martin Baines - Sun UK - SE Manager Cambridge)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Just a quick question
Date: 6 Nov 1992 17:25:11 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Ltd
Distribution: world
Reply-To: martin.baines@uk.sun.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: bottomdog.uk.sun.com

In article 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.

There isn't one! Despite a common belief in the idea there is
no recognition in law of "common law" marriages: i.e. no
inheritance rights and no divorce rights. If a "common law"
marriage breaks up and there are disputes over property
things get very legally messy unless there is clear definition
of ownership of each item or a separate deed of parnership.
If one partner dies intestate, the survivor has no legal rights
to the others property.

I have heard it said the reason the term came to be used
was a way of being more polite about couples "living in sin"
before it became socially acceptable.

Martin

---
"You might say that, but I couldn't possibly comment"

Martin Baines, Sales Support Manager,
Sun Microsystems Ltd, 306 Science Park, Cambridge, CB4 4WG, UK
Phone: +44 223 420421                 Fax: +44 223 420257
JANET:     Martin.Baines@uk.co.sun    Other UK:  Martin.Baines@sun.co.uk
Internet:  Martin.Baines@UK.sun.com
X.400:     g=martin s=baines prmd=sunir admd=mci c=us
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: How to insult a Brit (reprise)
Date: 7 Nov 92 00:21:30 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com


In article <1992Nov6.215717.1310@infodev.cam.ac.uk>, gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk writes:
> 
> 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!)

Someone once defined mixed feelings as "Watching your mother-
in-law drive off a cliff in your new Rolls Royce" and every
time someone mentions a possible break-up of the UK, I fancy
I know what he meant.

jon.

ps: Apologies to all the really swell mothers-in-law out there.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: david@postman.gr.osf.org (David George)
Subject: Re: Salaries+cost of living in UK
Organization: OSF RI Grenoble
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 10:59:54 GMT

In article <Nov05.034058.83655@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>, hg798502@LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Hugh Graham) writes:
|> ment@cs.swarthmore.edu (Andrew Ment) writes:
|> >ajj@zycor.lgc.com (Andrew Jackson) writes:
|> >
|> >
|> >>Could somebody out there clue me in about Windsor and vicinity?=
|> >
|> >there's this lovely castle just down the road ...
|> >
|> 
|> Yes, but why did they build it so close to the airport?


So the American tourists can "do it" as they come in to land !

David.

p.s. Slough Grammar has a good reputation !
From: cwilson@gssec.bt.co.uk (Colin Wilson)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Accent and Dialect, the politics there
Date: 6 Nov 92 14:23:35 GMT
Organization: BT

In article <A.Grant.15.720995919@ucs.cam.ac.uk>, A.Grant@ucs.cam.ac.uk (Alasdair Grant) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov5.130526.29965@gssec.bt.co.uk> cwilson@gssec.bt.co.uk (Colin Wilson) writes:
|> >in which the use of Scots is almost totally confined to comedy. If I
|> >ever have children, I would like them to be educated to be articulate
|> >and literate in their own language, and to know its literature - some
|> >of which is internationally respected
|> 
|> Please give examples.  Scott, Smollett, Adam Smith?  Burns is well-known,
|> but hardly 'respected'.  Of course, there is workmanlike stuff in Scots and
|> even Gaelic, but most of it turns out to have been written by English 
|> speakers who took up a new language as a hobby.  (Or a political statement,
|> c.f. Irish.)  Some even changed their names to try and become more Scottish
|> (Christopher Grieve).  How can anyone respect a tradition based on nostalgia
|> and misrepresentation?
|> --
|> Alasdair Grant

If there is any "misrepresentation" involved, it is on Grant's part: "I
have no regard for Scots literature, therefore no-one else does" is the
gist of his posting. On the face of it, such an attitude is hardly
worth responding to, as he is unlikely to be persuaded by anything that
I can say.

Whatever Grant says, Burns is most certainly a writer respected far
beyond Scotland. Why C. M. Grieve chose to use the name "Hugh
MacDiarmid" I do not know, but it was manifestly not in order to appear
more Scottish:  "grieve" is a solidly Scottish word whose meaning can
be found in any decent Scots dictionary.

In any case, some of the classic Scots literature goes back to a time
before the "union" with England when there was no need, or place, for
nostalgia or misrepresentation.  Grieve was well known for his
admiration of Dunbar, a prominent member of a succession of writers
known as the "Makaris".  In the fifteenth century, Dunbar, Barbour and
their peers produced work that won admiration all over Europe, in a
Scots that was as respected a literary medium as any other European
language of that time.

It is true that some recent Scots writing is produced by English speakers
who do it as a hobby, in a language that they do not fully understand,
and whose emotional force they do not fully grasp. However, such work
is mostly little known outside Scotland, and deservedly so.

********************************************************************************
*  Colin Wilson,                           E-mail:  cwilson@gssec.bt.co.uk     *
*  Glasgow Engineering Centre,             POTS:    (041) 220 5340             *
*  British Telecommunications plc.                  (+ 44 41) 220 5340         *
*  7 Caledon Street,                                                           *
*  Glesca / Glaschu G12 9BY,             Scotland a Twa-Leidit Fowkrick        *
*  Scotland / Alba.                      Biodh Alba 'na Poblachd Dha-Chananach *  ********************************************************************************
From: martin.baines@uk.sun.com (Martin Baines - Sun UK - SE Manager Cambridge)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Salaries+cost of living in UK
Date: 5 Nov 1992 15:58:32 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Ltd
Distribution: world
Reply-To: martin.baines@uk.sun.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: bottomdog.uk.sun.com

In article 251@infodev.cam.ac.uk, gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry) writes:
>In article <1d6a10INNbi2@grapevine.EBay.Sun.COM> martin.baines@uk.sun.com writes:
>>
>>When the bill to libralise Scottish Sunday Trading came before
>>the House, the English MPs abstained (as is tradition for
>>a free vote only applying to Scotland), and the Scottish
>>MPs duly carried the bill. When the equivallent bill 
>>for England and Wales come before the house, the Scottish
>>contingent of the Keep Sunday Special campaign being
>>upset at their previous defeat duly joined their English
>>collegues in voting the bill down. If only English and Welsh
>>MPs were counted the bill would have passed.
>
>In that case, why didn't the Scottish MPs who were in favour
>of Sunday trading also vote on the English bill?  They must
>have outnumbered the Scottish anti-Sunday-trading MPs (or
>else the Scottish bill wouldn't have passed), so if what 
>you say is right then there wold have been enough of them
>to get the English bill through.

I guess they didn't fee as strongly: the Keep Sunday Special
MPs tend to have strong often religiously motivated feelings
on the issue (or are sponsored by shop workers unions). Those
who favour liberalisation of the rules tend not to be so
passionate about it.

Martin

---
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You might say that, but I couldn't possibly comment"

Martin Baines, Sales Support Manager,
Sun Microsystems Ltd, 306 Science Park, Cambridge, CB4 4WG, UK
Phone: +44 223 420421                 Fax: +44 223 420257
JANET:     Martin.Baines@uk.co.sun    Other UK:  Martin.Baines@sun.co.uk
Internet:  Martin.Baines@UK.sun.com
X.400:     g=martin s=baines prmd=sunir admd=mci c=us

Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: sp@osf.org (Simon Patience)
Subject: Re: Rule Britannia
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 13:04:12 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.065701.150709@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>, dk0a@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (DIMITRIOS KOUVATSOS) writes:
> >Ah, you mean the Grandmother of Parliaments that everyone complains does
> >not reflect the wishes of the people today. Oh and that wonderful
> >industrial base that we have with hardly any class conflict in it.
> 
> I'm surprised to hear that "everyone" complains that the UK is not a
> democratic country! Did Major roll over the tanks to Number 10 last April,
> or what? I'd suggest that, for whatever reasons, the Tories won the popular
> vote. Simple arithmetic.

You clearly know nothing of the British electoral system. The "whatever
reasons" are that the result of the election does not represent the
popular vote.

> >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.
> 
> It appears that you have no understanding whatsoever of how the capitalist
> system works. 

No of course not, silly me. Thank you for pointing out my misunderstanding
of my own inadequacies.

> The UK, as well as the USA and the whole Britannic world, swept
> to prosperity in the 18th and 19th century because it _created_ vast new
> wealth that had never existed before - not because it stole it from the
> underdeveloped societies of the Third World, which until recently had never
> developed the cultural mindset necessary for prosperity - the spirit of trade,
> maritime dominance, individualism. And the UK declined once the collectivist
> mindset you express became dominant (among a host of secondary reasons, to be
> sure). Sure, Britain had to decline once the rest of the world caught up and
> the vast American republic dwarfed it - but not so shockingly much, so fast!

Perhaps you should post this on soc.culture.india and see how many people
agree with this assessment.

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,soc.culture.celtic
From: cockburn@edieng.enet.dec.com (Craig Cockburn)
Subject: Re: Accent and Dialect, the politics there
Organization: Digital Equipment Co. Ltd., Reading, England
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 11:42:18 GMT


In article <1992Nov10.064324.23292@philmtl.philips.ca>, ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Ray Dunn) writes...
>[A little late perhaps but now crossposted to soc.culture.celtic]
> 
>In refd article, A.Grant@ucs.cam.ac.uk (Alasdair Grant) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov8.205021.21238@philmtl.philips.ca> ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Ray Dunn) writes:
>>>.. My experience is that multi-lingual (or
>>>even multi-dialectual) people are much more open to acquiring some
>>>proficiency in a further language than those only exposed to a single
>>>language.
>>
>>....I take your point that there
>>is more opportunity for someone in Scotland to be _actively_ bilingual in
>>Scots and/or Gaelic, but that is the sort of thinking that gets English
>>children learning Bengali and Urdu (not that I have anything against these
>>languages, I just think French and German are far more important).
> 
>But Alisdair, you're still ignoring one of my basic points.  More important
>for _what_.  French and German may help you in the quantity department,
>Gaelic or Bengali or whatever may improve your life immeasurably in other
>ways.
> 
Gaelic also opens up a number of careers in:
teaching (all levels), publishing, TV, radio, newspapers, translation,
etc etc

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  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: cmh004@cck.coventry.ac.uk (Dave)
Subject: Re: Anglican vs C of E
Organization: Lanchester Polytechnic
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 11:15:55 GMT

In article <lfqrt4INNa64@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> linden@positive.Eng.Sun.COM (Trelford Pinkerton) writes:
>I would like to hear what the difference is between
>the Anglican church, and the Church of England.  This is in
>the context of the Monarch being the Supreme Head of Britain's 
>official state religion.

Put it one way - All members of the Church of England are members of the 
Anglican church, but not all members of the Anglican church are members of the
Church of England. Yet because I'm in the Anglican communion I can celebrate
Holy Communion in any Anglican church - I think there is a Anglican church in
USA and most other ex-colonies of the British Empire.
The Queen is the head of the Church of England, but the Arch-Bishop of 
Canterbury is the head of the Anglican Church.

>Perhaps it's written in the British Constitution somewhere?

Firstly Britain does not have a written Constitution as such. Anyway it is
the Church of England which is the established in England. The Church of
Wales was disestablised in 1920. I do not know what the position is in
Scotland and Northern Ireland, but it is only Church of England Bishops who
sit in the House of Lords.
-- 
Dave                                                       cmh004@cck.cov.ac.uk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Call this place what you like - Coventry University, Coventry Polytechnic or
Lanchester Polytechnic it is all the same and is called school.
From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: How to insult a Brit (reprise)
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:36:33 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

In article <1992Nov3.004457.2089@math.ucla.edu> pugh@pico.math.ucla.edu (David Pugh) writes:
>In article <CC.92Nov2094454@arran.dcs.ed.ac.uk> cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Chris Cooke) writes:
>>In article <1ck5s6INNe50@early-bird.think.com> sandee@Think.COM (Daan Sandee) writes:
>>
>>   Also, we need a gender-
>>   neutral form, or both masculine and feminine forms. If 'Britishwoman' is
>>   preferred, so be it. But 'Briton' sounds like you paint yourself with woad.
>>
>>Hard luck!  The word is "Briton".
>>--
>>
>
>How about Britperson?
>
>David

Would that be pronounced "Brittperson" or "Brightperson"?

Gerry
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: cwilson@gssec.bt.co.uk (Colin Wilson)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Accent and Dialect, the politics there
Date: 9 Nov 92 18:10:58 GMT
Organization: BT

In article <1ddqo4INN1a8@grapevine.EBay.Sun.COM>, martin.baines@uk.sun.com (Martin Baines - Sun UK - SE Manager Cambridge) writes:
|> In article 29965@gssec.bt.co.uk, cwilson@gssec.bt.co.uk (Colin Wilson) writes:
|> >
|> >If you believe that the debate over the status of Scots is pointless,
|> >then that is probably - I would respectfully suggest - because you have
|> >no personal stake in the issue. For some of us, however, things are
|> >different.
|> 
|> I didn't say the debate about the status of the Scots language/dialect
|> (delete according to taste) was pointless: merely the arcane
|> debate about constituted a language verses a dialect.

Throughout this thread, I have not sought to debate what constituted the
difference between a language and a dialect: I have sought to argue that
Scots in particular should be treated by society as a language in its
own right, and reinforced my argument by pointing out the respects in which
Scots cannot be bracketed with the regional dialects of England.

|> if there is an audiance I see
|> no problem with there being Scots language/dialect radio and
|> TV stations, books newspapers etc. I would also support any
|> move for schools to offer courses in the same: providing there
|> was freedom of choice, but that's another debate.
|> 
|> But as a fervent non-nationalist, I don't think emotional debates
|> about the semantics of what is/is not a language/dialect add
|> any real contribution to the practical problems.
|> 
|
I'm glad to have your support with regard to education and the media. Perhaps
you will suggest some ways in which the practical problems CAN be addressed.

********************************************************************************
*  Colin Wilson,                           E-mail:  cwilson@gssec.bt.co.uk     *
*  Glasgow Engineering Centre,             POTS:    (041) 220 5340             *
*  British Telecommunications plc.                  (+ 44 41) 220 5340         *
*  7 Caledon Street,                                                           *
*  Glesca / Glaschu G12 9BY,             Scotland a Twa-Leidit Fowkrick        *
*  Scotland / Alba.                      Biodh Alba 'na Poblachd Dha-Chananach *  ********************************************************************************
From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Quayle and the Tailless Cat
Date: 5 Nov 92 22:22:28 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX


>Hmmm... It has often struck me as odd that the Canadians I work with
>all claim to come from a country called Canada, rather than Canadia :-)
>Maybe Canada is that other place that uses the upside down maple leaf
>on its flag...
>
>   Alan

When I was in Germany I heard someone claim that the name Canada was
coined by the Austrian who discovered the place.  He went ashore with
a landing party and, finding no inhabitants, came back a few hours later 
and said, "Ist kahne da".

This seems like a doubly wrong posting doesn't it?

g.p.
From: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Rule Britannia
Date: 13 Nov 92 10:04:36 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

From: gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
>What would be constructive would be to look at the political stability
>of countries with a German-style system as a group, and compare the
>data with similar data for countries that use a simple majority
>system, or a two-round system, or the Alternative Vote, or STV, or
>pure PR, or whatever.  I don't know of any such study but I'm sure
>someone must have done one.

In practice the German system is simply pure proportionality
with a 5% cut-off. The idea that it is a hybrid is nonsense,
since the constituency vote doesn't count for anything. The
number of seat each party gets depends entirely on its list
vote, so any constituency candidate elected or unelected is
balanced by a list candidate unelected or elected.

Matthew Huntbach
From: Trevor.Kirby@newcastle.ac.uk (Trevor Kirby)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: The dog in the House of Commons
Date: 6 Nov 92 09:55:20 GMT
Organization: Computing Laboratory, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK NE1 7RU.


In article <1992Nov5.110011.13742@dcs.warwick.ac.uk>, dc@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Douglas Chester) writes:
>
>It belongs to David Blunkett, Labour's shadow health spokesman, who is
>blind (ergo it is a GUIDE dog).
>
>It is probably the best behaved creature in the Commons!

And is certainly the only useful one.

 Trev
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:15466 alt.folklore.urban:27831
From: smckinty@sunicnc.France.Sun.COM (Steve McKinty - Sun ICNC)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Britain doesn't have a Constitution (Re: An astonishing Guy)
Date: 9 Nov 1992 11:17:42 GMT
Organization: SunConnect
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: hardy.france.sun.com

In article <lfqrduINNa4m@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, linden@positive.Eng.Sun.COM (Trelford Pinkerton) writes:
> Audrey:
> > Just because the Americans have one method of creating a constitutional 
> > framework, does not mean that any other method (by definition) is not 
> > capable of achieving the same results. 
> 
> True.
> 
> > We do have a constitution, it's just in a different form. 
> 
> If that different form does not comprise a framework within which all
> laws are passed, and with which all laws must agree, then it is not a
> constitution in the American sense,

Ahh. So a constitution is only a constitution if the Americans allow it to
be. Glad we got that point cleared up.

> 
> 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".   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...


Steve

-- 
Steve McKinty
SUN Microsystems ICNC
38240 Meylan, France
email: smckinty@france.sun.com	   BIX: smckinty
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:15341 alt.folklore.urban:27623