On 14 Nov 2012 tony cooper <tony.cooper...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It made it to the newspaper here: Prince Charles does not require
> seven eggs prepared for his breakfast.
> The newspaper article informed us that the Prince's website now
> contains a FAQ link.
> http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/faqs > Personally, I am intrigued by the fact that PC employs 161.1 members
> of staff. Evidently, one member of his staff gives less than 100%.
> .9 less.
It's said that when the last Pope was asked how many people work in the Vatican, his answer was "about 30%".
Seriously, though, some of them are part-timers, Shirley.
Peter.
-- Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk
> Personally, I am intrigued by the fact that PC employs 161.1 members
> of staff. Evidently, one member of his staff gives less than 100%.
> .9 less.
Works half a day a week, possibly. The number of people working in my department is not a whole number because several members are on fractional contracts and don't work full time..
> Personally, I am intrigued by the fact that PC employs 161.1 members
> of staff. Evidently, one member of his staff gives less than 100%.
> .9 less.
There was a feature on the TV news about 5 minutes ago about rising
employment levels, where the owner (or manager maybe) of a light
engineering company was interviewed about how many new staff it had
recently been taken on. His answer:
<la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
>On 14/11/2012 17:21, tony cooper wrote:
>> It made it to the newspaper here: Prince Charles does not require
>> seven eggs prepared for his breakfast.
>> The newspaper article informed us that the Prince's website now
>> contains a FAQ link.
>> Personally, I am intrigued by the fact that PC employs 161.1 members
>> of staff. Evidently, one member of his staff gives less than 100%.
>> .9 less.
>Works half a day a week, possibly. The number of people working in my >department is not a whole number because several members are on >fractional contracts and don't work full time..
Actually, I did figure that out on my own. I think, if I was writing
the FAQ, that I would have said that PC has "about 161 members of
staff in his employ". This would probably be more accurate anyway if
some staff members leave over time and some staff members are added.
>Personally, I am intrigued by the fact that PC employs 161.1 members
>of staff. Evidently, one member of his staff gives less than 100%.
>.9 less.
Which means that, should future conditions support a reduction in the size of
HRH's staff, we should say that he will then employ less people, not fewer....r
R H Draney wrote:
> tony cooper filted:
>> Personally, I am intrigued by the fact that PC employs 161.1 members
>> of staff. Evidently, one member of his staff gives less than 100%.
>> .9 less.
> Which means that, should future conditions support a reduction in the
> size of HRH's staff, we should say that he will then employ less
> people, not fewer....r
I recently heard an ad for the Volt, in which a woman says "I go to the
gas station such a small amount that ...".
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 17:53:12 +0000, LFS
> <la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
>>On 14/11/2012 17:21, tony cooper wrote:
>>> It made it to the newspaper here: Prince Charles does not require
>>> seven eggs prepared for his breakfast.
>>> The newspaper article informed us that the Prince's website now
>>> contains a FAQ link.
>>> Personally, I am intrigued by the fact that PC employs 161.1 members
>>> of staff. Evidently, one member of his staff gives less than 100%.
>>> .9 less.
>>Works half a day a week, possibly. The number of people working in my
>>department is not a whole number because several members are on
>>fractional contracts and don't work full time..
> Actually, I did figure that out on my own. I think, if I was writing
> the FAQ, that I would have said that PC has "about 161 members of
> staff in his employ". This would probably be more accurate anyway if
> some staff members leave over time and some staff members are added.
We had quite a number of part-timers when I was in the Civil Service so an accurate way of describing Chuck's lackeys might be "Employs 192 members of staff equivalent to 161.1 full-time posts."
>>On 14/11/2012 17:21, tony cooper wrote:
>>> It made it to the newspaper here: Prince Charles does not require
>>> seven eggs prepared for his breakfast.
>>> The newspaper article informed us that the Prince's website now
>>> contains a FAQ link.
>>> Personally, I am intrigued by the fact that PC employs 161.1 members
>>> of staff. Evidently, one member of his staff gives less than 100%.
>>> .9 less.
>>Works half a day a week, possibly. The number of people working in my >>department is not a whole number because several members are on >>fractional contracts and don't work full time..
>Actually, I did figure that out on my own. I think, if I was writing
>the FAQ, that I would have said that PC has "about 161 members of
>staff in his employ". This would probably be more accurate anyway if
>some staff members leave over time and some staff members are added.
>>>On 14/11/2012 17:21, tony cooper wrote:
>>>> It made it to the newspaper here: Prince Charles does not require
>>>> seven eggs prepared for his breakfast.
>>>> The newspaper article informed us that the Prince's website now
>>>> contains a FAQ link.
>>>> Personally, I am intrigued by the fact that PC employs 161.1 members
>>>> of staff. Evidently, one member of his staff gives less than 100%.
>>>> .9 less.
>>>Works half a day a week, possibly. The number of people working in my
>>>department is not a whole number because several members are on
>>>fractional contracts and don't work full time..
>> Actually, I did figure that out on my own. I think, if I was writing
>> the FAQ, that I would have said that PC has "about 161 members of
>> staff in his employ". This would probably be more accurate anyway if
>> some staff members leave over time and some staff members are added.
>We had quite a number of part-timers when I was in the Civil Service so an >accurate way of describing Chuck's lackeys might be "Employs 192 members of >staff equivalent to 161.1 full-time posts."
Or using a standard initialism: "Employs 192 members of staff (161.1
FTE)."
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:11:16 -0500, tony cooper wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 17:53:12 +0000, LFS
> <la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
> > [quoted text muted]
> >Works half a day a week, possibly. The number of people working in my > >department is not a whole number because several members are on > >fractional contracts and don't work full time..
> Actually, I did figure that out on my own. I think, if I was writing
> the FAQ, that I would have said that PC has "about 161 members of
> staff in his employ". This would probably be more accurate anyway
I beg to differ. If e.g. he had 100 full-time staff and 122 half-
time staff, he would have 161 full-time equivalents, but 222 people working for him. I'm not sufficiently motivated to come up with a plausible mix that would lead to the 161.1 FTE cited on the site, but I'm sure it can be done.
In any case, I suspect there's some disingenuousness in the official count of staff. Just as some assets officially owned by the nation are used exclusively by the royals (like the Bentley mentioned in the FAQ), so I feel sure that some who are officially government employees are in fact engaged exclusively in duties for the royals.
Please understand that I am not objecting to that practice. Like any large business, a government spawns creative accounting practices, and they are not necessarily intrinsically bad.
-- "The difference between the /almost right/ word and the /right/ word
is ... the difference between the lightning-bug and the lightning."
--Mark Twain
Stan Brown, Tompkins County, NY, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com
> > Why's he got a .gov.uk domain, he's not part of the government.
> He's a member of the Privy Council
I don't believe the Privy Council is a part of the government in any meaningful way. I read somewhere that the Cabinet is legally a subcommittee of the Privy Council, but even if that's correct it's a legal fiction.
The Prince of Wales, despite not being a member of the Government, does have official duties. For example, he is normally Regent when Her Majesty is abroad. And I believe he has some official duties in Wales, though I'm not sure about that.
I'm crossposting to alt.talk.royalty, where they will confirm what I said, or correct me.
-- "The difference between the /almost right/ word and the /right/ word
is ... the difference between the lightning-bug and the lightning."
--Mark Twain
Stan Brown, Tompkins County, NY, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com
In alt.talk.royalty Stan Brown <the_stan_br...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
: On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 19:34:40 +0100, bob wrote:
:> On 2012-11-14 18:17:00 +0000, jgharston said:
:> :> > tony cooper wrote:
:> >> http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/faqs :> > :> > Why's he got a .gov.uk domain, he's not part of the government.
:> :> He's a member of the Privy Council
:> : : I don't believe the Privy Council is a part of the government in any : meaningful way. I read somewhere that the Cabinet is legally a : subcommittee of the Privy Council, but even if that's correct it's a : legal fiction.
: : The Prince of Wales, despite not being a member of the Government, : does have official duties. For example, he is normally Regent when : Her Majesty is abroad.
Counselor of State,not Regent.
: And I believe he has some official duties in : Wales, though I'm not sure about that.
: : I'm crossposting to alt.talk.royalty, where they will confirm what I : said, or correct me.
Stan Brown and I have very opposite views of things.
He believes in the "fiction" part of "legal fictions",
I in the "legal" part.
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
On Nov 15, 3:50 am, Stan Brown <the_stan_br...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:11:16 -0500, tony cooper wrote:
> Please understand that I am not objecting to that practice. Like any
> large business, a government spawns creative accounting practices,
> and they are not necessarily intrinsically bad.
Insofar as they allow a more accurate picture to be painted, they are
good.
Insofar as they allow a distorted, inaccurate and deceptive picture to
be painted, they are bad.
Given the proportion of the first to the second in fact, I think one
could conclude that, when used by humans, they are usually,
necessarily, bad.
> Actually, I did figure that out on my own. I think, if I was writing
> the FAQ, that I would have said that PC has "about 161 members of
> staff in his employ"...
I would have found the use of "about" with an exact-looking number
like 161 almost equally comical.
-- Mark Brader, Toronto | "This is a film of non-stop action
m...@vex.net | and non-start intelligence." --Mark Leeper
> I don't believe the Privy Council is a part of the government in any
> meaningful way.
No, it's not. It's a formal body of advisers to the sovereign with few remaining powers. It's used to make "Orders in Council", which is the process by which secondary legislation is passed at Westminster, but my understanding is that it just rubber-stamps legislation that's already been drafted by the government. I think it may have a few judicial functions as well, but you rarely hear about them.
> I read somewhere that the Cabinet is legally a
> subcommittee of the Privy Council, but even if that's correct it's a
> legal fiction.
Apparently so. Wikipedia says "The Cabinet is the executive committee of Her Majesty's Privy Council, a body which has legislative, judicial and executive functions, and whose large membership includes members of the Opposition. Its decisions are generally implemented either under the existing powers of individual government departments, or by Orders in Council".
"Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
> "Stan Brown" wrote in message > news:MPG.2b0e1547713a725098db9f@news.individual.net...
>> I read somewhere that the Cabinet is legally a subcommittee of the
>> Privy Council, but even if that's correct it's a legal fiction.
> Apparently so. Wikipedia says "The Cabinet is the executive
> committee of Her Majesty's Privy Council, a body which has
> legislative, judicial and executive functions, and whose large
> membership includes members of the Opposition. Its decisions are
> generally implemented either under the existing powers of individual
> government departments, or by Orders in Council".
This is part of a process described with some hilarity in _Parkinson's
Law_, Chapter 4. Cabinet status is prestigious, both for the member
and for his outfit, so it tends to be bestowed on more & more people
for political reasons, until the cabinet becomes unwieldy and an inner
cabal develops. House of Lords -> Lords of the King's Council ->
Privy Council -> Cabinet Council -> Cabinet, says Parkinson.
I strongly recommend that book, which everyone has heard of but few
have read. It contains much, much more delicious satire (on
administration & on social science) than the eponymous Law itself.
Altho Parkinson was a Tory, his targets include business as well as
government bureaucracy.
-- --- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
"Joe Fineman" wrote in message news:utxsqho61.fsf@verizon.net...
> This is part of a process described with some hilarity in _Parkinson's
> Law_, Chapter 4. Cabinet status is prestigious, both for the member
> and for his outfit, so it tends to be bestowed on more & more people
> for political reasons, until the cabinet becomes unwieldy and an inner
> cabal develops. House of Lords -> Lords of the King's Council ->
> Privy Council -> Cabinet Council -> Cabinet, says Parkinson.
It doesn't stop there. Very few decisions are made by the full Cabinet - most of the decision-making takes place in Cabinet committees, or even (as under Tony Blair's administration) in one-to-one meetings between the Prime Minister and individual Ministers. I'm not really sure what model our current government has adopted, since it's a coalition of two parties.
>>> Personally, I am intrigued by the fact that PC employs 161.1 members
>>> of staff. Evidently, one member of his staff gives less than 100%.
>>> .9 less.
>> Which means that, should future conditions support a reduction in the
>> size of HRH's staff, we should say that he will then employ less
>> people, not fewer....r
> I recently heard an ad for the Volt, in which a woman says "I go to the
> gas station such a small amount that ...".
-- Classical Greek lent itself to the promulgation of a rich culture,
indeed, to Western civilization. Computer languages bring us
doorbells that chime with thirty-two tunes, alt.sex.bestiality, and
Tetris clones. (Stoll 1995)
>> Personally, I am intrigued by the fact that PC employs 161.1 members
>> of staff. Evidently, one member of his staff gives less than 100%.
>> .9 less.
Domestics usually get to take home some castoffs from their employers.
The Royal chars are probably given the occasional tarnished tiara,
chipped crown jewel, and the carved bushbaby baculum presented by the
visiting diplomat from Senegal.
>>> Personally, I am intrigued by the fact that PC employs 161.1 members
>>> of staff. Evidently, one member of his staff gives less than 100%.
>>> .9 less.
>> Which means that, should future conditions support a reduction in the
>> size of HRH's staff, we should say that he will then employ less
>> people, not fewer....r
> I recently heard an ad for the Volt, in which a woman says "I go to the
> gas station such a small amount that ...".
I've been hearing that all-purpose "amount" quite a lot lately.
Reporters will say something like "A large amount of people have already
signed up for the ...".
It's not technically incorrect; just weird-sounding for those of us who
grew up saying these things differently.
-- Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page.
>>> On 14/11/2012 17:21, tony cooper wrote:
>>>> It made it to the newspaper here: Prince Charles does not require
>>>> seven eggs prepared for his breakfast.
>>>> The newspaper article informed us that the Prince's website now
>>>> contains a FAQ link.
>>>> Personally, I am intrigued by the fact that PC employs 161.1 members
>>>> of staff. Evidently, one member of his staff gives less than 100%.
>>>> .9 less.
>>> Works half a day a week, possibly. The number of people working in my
>>> department is not a whole number because several members are on
>>> fractional contracts and don't work full time..
>> Actually, I did figure that out on my own. I think, if I was writing
>> the FAQ, that I would have said that PC has "about 161 members of
>> staff in his employ". This would probably be more accurate anyway if
>> some staff members leave over time and some staff members are added.
> We had quite a number of part-timers when I was in the Civil Service so
> an accurate way of describing Chuck's lackeys might be "Employs 192
> members of staff equivalent to 161.1 full-time posts."
That is the form we used at all the schools I worked in.
