England will always be a dirty word...(WasRe: Great Britain (was British Isles
B A Cragg
: On Fri, 4 Nov 1994, huxley wrote:
: > ha ha. come on, face it, you scotch people made such a hog's
: > ear of governing yourself last time that we english people
: > had to step in and help you out. frankly, we are doing you a
: > favour, so stop whinging or we'll deport you somewhere even
: > wetter and colder. imagine the embarrassment we face, having
: > a neighbouring country where the men wear skirts. oh my.
: > love,
: > huxley.
: > and learn to speak properly. heaven only knows how one is
: > supposed to understand those ridiculous accents.
: >
: >
: Can I make the following points.
: 1) Scotch is what you you drink, not a nationality
: 2) It's not skirts, they are kilts.
: 3) In 1603 (or somewhere around then) James VI King of Scots, became
: James I of England, Wales, France (not de-facto), and Ireland, on the
: death of Elizabeth I. Therefore the Scots came down here, and not vice-versa.
: Some how we all (except the Scots) forget this bit!!!!
Of course you can make those points, but why? When exactly did you have
your humourectomy? I suggest you read a few more of Huxleys postings
before wading into pedant mode.
BAZZA
muz
>BAZZA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HOHOHOHOHOHOHOHO
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEE
TITTERTITTERGUFUKINFAW
i just love chuckling away at myself cos I'm Scottish and therefore so
incredibly funny. it's just amazingly hilarious when people try to insult me
because of my nationality
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HOHOHOHOHOHOHOHO
...the funniest thing is these sick englanders who think any attempt to
indicate that they are racist results from a lack of a sense of humour...
and they post little putdowns with wacky (or wot!!!!) words
like 'humerectomy'
just to show that *they* don't take things seriously
and they're original jibes were just funny little quips.
i thnk we've had about enough of this toss.
or how about i suggest some jokes:
hear about the sad englanders who thought they were funny?
let's not any more, huh.
B A Cragg
: >BAZZA
If you find englanders so sad, and insulting, and scotlands such a fun
fantastic place to be, how come you emigrated to Coventry?
BAZZA
huxley
> huxley (hux...@ed.ac.uk) wrote:
> > [bit of heavily unsubtle sarcasm deleted]
>
> Quite a ballsy statement considering England had to be bailed out twice in the
> past century... Just a Yank Mick in Boston who's on his way to being a
> barrister posting an observation from this side of the Atlantic...
>
> Do you really perpetuate all that bullshit over in the (Un)United Kingdom?
> Scot, Welsh, Brit, Irish? No wonder the Commonwealth has fallen apart.
> With that kind of rot at the core, what self-respecting people would continue
> to let the Crown and Parliament bleed them dry?
what on earth are you talking about? what does it have to do
with the commonwealth (which hasn't, incidentally, fallen
apart)? and it would be disunited and not ununited.
ha, i see you are one of those irish-americans. how many
generations has it been now? i personally i am recently
welsh-english although i am likely as not part scandanavian,
scottish, norman, and anglo-saxon too. of course,
welsh-scandanavian-scottish-norman-anglo-saxon english is a
bit of a mouthful so i normally abbreviate it to english for
convenience. perhaps you could just try american, i'd ask
about your heritage if i were that interested in it.
have a nice day now.
love,
huxley.
conversations at u.s. customs: "what nationality?" /
"british." / "no, what country?" / "i live in scotland" /
"where you born there?" / "no, england" / "so you're british
then?"
muz
>If you find englanders so sad, and insulting, and scotlands such a fun
>fantastic place to be, how come you emigrated to Coventry?
>BAZZA
just to bring a little light into your dreary lives of course.
David Stevenson
> 1) Scotch is what you you drink, not a nationality
May I recommend that you look the word up in a dictionary?
--
David Stevenson, JET Joint Undertaking +44 1235 465028
Email: d...@jet.uk or ho...@cix.compulink.co.uk
- Disclaimer: Please note that the above is a personal view and should not
be construed as an official comment from the JET project.
muz
>fr...@csv.warwick.ac.uk (muz)[oh god, it's him again]
get that schoolboys?
insert chortle and eyes rolled comically
writes:
cut enforced mirth de ma part.
>> ...the funniest thing is these sick englanders who think any attempt to
>> indicate that they are racist results from a lack of a sense of humour...
>i would hardly consider my original post racist. if anything
>it was a rather obvious piece of sarcasm pointed at the kind
>of nationalism that so often only thrives on the hatred of
>someone else, or a badly caricatured stereotype of them.
>since the thread was originally started with some inane
>comment along the lines of `is english still a dirty word in
>scotland?' followed by several other people adding equal
>inanities about how horrible the english were. i simply
>reversed the trend by satirising the scottish stereotype,
>and it was intended to be a somewhat humourous gibe aimed at
>certain people earlier in the thread. had i made the
>stereotyped references any more obvious i would have
>probably given myself a nosebleed.
>> and they post little putdowns with wacky (or wot!!!!) words
>> like 'humerectomy'
>> just to show that *they* don't take things seriously
>> and they're original jibes were just funny little quips.
>who is `they'? bazza and i? the whole english population?
>you appear to be tripping over your own definition of racism
>with your rather confusing references to `sick englanders.'
>> i thnk we've had about enough of this toss.
>> or how about i suggest some jokes:
>>
>> hear about the sad englanders who thought they were funny?
>> let's not any more, huh.
>well, whoever `we' are, we are certainly funnier than you,
>and at least we have a grasp on the concept of irony.
>now buzz off.
>love,
>huxley.
>and i am not an englander, i am english and british and
>proud to be both.
mm
british?
pride?
and this guy thinks scots are nationalistic!
btw aldous,
i'll buzz where i get my pollen
muz
SZSZSZSZSZSZSZSZSZSZSZSZSZSZSZSZSZSZSZSZSZSZSZSZSZSZ
roland qui?
muz
email: fr...@snow.csv.warwick.ac.uk
RBRBRBRBRBRBRBRBRBRBRBRBRBRBRBRBRBRBRBRBRBRBRBRB
Adam Hamilton
|> In <frraj.137...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> fr...@csv.warwick.ac.uk (muz) writes:
|>
|> > 1) Scotch is what you you drink, not a nationality
|> May I recommend that you look the word up in a dictionary?
|>
Ah, that would explain it.
David Hough
>fantastic place to be, how come you emigrated to Coventry?
>
Dave
--
*****************************************************************************
* G4WRW @ GB7WRW.#41.GBR.EU AX25 * *
* da...@llondel.demon.co.uk Internet * Stop the World! I want to get off! *
* g4...@g4wrw.ampr.org Amprnet * *
*****************************************************************************
Thomson McFarlane
>ha ha. come on, face it, you scotch people
We Scots know how to spell Scots, scotch is a drink
>made such a hog's
>ear of governing yourself last time that we english people
>had to step in and help you out.
A German ruled country involved in an imperialist invasion
coupled with bribery is helping out ?
>frankly, we are doing you a
>favour,
Who needs your favours ?
>so stop whinging or we'll deport you somewhere even
>wetter and colder.
Colder I now have, wetter is unlikely.
>imagine the embarrassment we face,
Good
>having a neighbouring country where the men wear skirts. oh my.
Don't knock it till you have tried it !
>
>> Thomson (Note NO 'p')
>
>so, you have an ancestor that couldn't spell. big deal.
>
Enforced illegallity of the language plus the necessity to translate for the
English - well known for their linguistic prowess.
>love,
>huxley.
>and learn to speak properly. heaven only knows how one is
>supposed to understand those ridiculous accents.
Away an' get cairted, A hope yer next keech is a porcupine
Uilleam Mac a Pharthaloin
Thomson (Note NO 'p')
Mijn vrouw heeft een bril, en voor de rest ......
huxley
>
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> HOHOHOHOHOHOHOHO
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> HEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEE
> TITTERTITTERGUFUKINFAW
> i just love chuckling away at myself cos I'm Scottish and therefore so
> incredibly funny. it's just amazingly hilarious when people try to insult me
> because of my nationality
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> HOHOHOHOHOHOHOHO
>
> ...the funniest thing is these sick englanders who think any attempt to
> indicate that they are racist results from a lack of a sense of humour...
i would hardly consider my original post racist. if anything
it was a rather obvious piece of sarcasm pointed at the kind
of nationalism that so often only thrives on the hatred of
someone else, or a badly caricatured stereotype of them.
since the thread was originally started with some inane
comment along the lines of `is english still a dirty word in
scotland?' followed by several other people adding equal
inanities about how horrible the english were. i simply
reversed the trend by satirising the scottish stereotype,
and it was intended to be a somewhat humourous gibe aimed at
certain people earlier in the thread. had i made the
stereotyped references any more obvious i would have
probably given myself a nosebleed.
> and they post little putdowns with wacky (or wot!!!!) words
> like 'humerectomy'
> just to show that *they* don't take things seriously
> and they're original jibes were just funny little quips.
who is `they'? bazza and i? the whole english population?
you appear to be tripping over your own definition of racism
with your rather confusing references to `sick englanders.'
> i thnk we've had about enough of this toss.
> or how about i suggest some jokes:
>
> hear about the sad englanders who thought they were funny?
> let's not any more, huh.
well, whoever `we' are, we are certainly funnier than you,
David Morning
>In <frraj.137...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> fr...@csv.warwick.ac.uk (muz) writes:
>> 1) Scotch is what you you drink, not a nationality
>May I recommend that you look the word up in a dictionary?
..which will inform you that the term, wrt nationality, is archaic. But hey!
if you want to speak like Chaucer or Shakespeare, feel free..
B A Cragg
muz (fr...@csv.warwick.ac.uk) wrote:
: >If you find englanders so sad, and insulting, and scotlands such a fun
: >fantastic place to be, how come you emigrated to Coventry?
: >BAZZA
: just to bring a little light into your dreary lives of course.
You're not a missionary are you?
BAZZA
Adam Hamilton
|> (excerpt from chambers dictionary)..
|> _Scotch_, ..... in common use even among Scottish dialect speakers
Well, they got that completely wrong, didn't they.
Colin Rosenthal
: >If you find englanders so sad, and insulting, and scotlands such a fun
: >fantastic place to be, how come you emigrated to Coventry?
: >BAZZA
: just to bring a little light into your dreary lives of course.
Or perhaps because the English stole all our jobs! and everything else...
Did you know the chair was invented by a Scotsman? It's true. Before
that we were all sitting on our ARSES!!!
The Scots invented everything - they even invented the English!!
And that's a fact.
(apologies for ruthless plagiarism of Naked Video.)
--
Colin Rosenthal rose...@obs.aau.dk
Teoretisk Astrofysik Center telephone 8942 3609
Aarhus Universitet fax 8612 0740
DK - 8000 Aarhus C
Denmark
`` Everyone knows the right answer is to hold a knife to the man's
throat until he gives you the car, then knee the producer in the nuts and
drive out through the studio's rear entrance! With both goats! ''
(Terry Pratchett solves the Monty Hall Problem.)
A. Grant
... > 1) Scotch is what you you drink, not a nationality
>|> May I recommend that you look the word up in a dictionary?
> Would that be a Scots dictionary or an English dictionary?
>Ah, that would explain it.
_Scotch_, adj. a form of _Scottish_ or _Scots_, in common use even
among Scottish dialect speakers, though disliked or resented by many
Scotsmen... n. Scotch whisky, or a glass of it: the Scottish
(Northern English) dialect: (as pl.) the Scots.
This is from Chambers which is a Scottish dictionary of English,
published in Edinburgh.
A. Grant
Which would be surprising since Chambers are based in Edinburgh like you.
Ronnie Thomson
> In <frraj.137...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> fr...@csv.warwick.ac.uk (muz) writes:
>
> > 1) Scotch is what you you drink, not a nationality
> May I recommend that you look the word up in a dictionary?
>
I did, and under the usage section its says, and I quote, "scotch for Scots
or Scottish is otherwise felt to be incorrect, especially when applied to
persons" - Collins English Dictionary.
Ronnie Thomson
---
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ronnie Thomson INTERNET rt...@cadre.com
Cadre Technologies, Inc VOICE: 401-351-5950 ext 344
222 Richmond Street FAX: 401-455-6800
Providence, RI 02903
A.J. Norman
>d...@jet.uk (David Stevenson) writes:
>
>>May I recommend that you look the word up in a dictionary?
>
>..which will inform you that the term, wrt nationality, is archaic. But hey!
>if you want to speak like Chaucer or Shakespeare, feel free..
>
So the Scotchman who wrote to the Observer (or possibly Grauniad)
recently, complaining that phonetic clues in the crossword made no sense
to people with accents other than SE English, was wrong to describe
himself and his compatriots as "Scotch"?
--
Andrew Norman, Leicester, England | Jedermann sein eigner Fussball
n...@le.ac.uk |
David Morning
>In article <CyyHp...@dcs.gla.ac.uk>, David Morning <d...@dcs.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
>>d...@jet.uk (David Stevenson) writes:
>>
>>>May I recommend that you look the word up in a dictionary?
>>
>>..which will inform you that the term, wrt nationality, is archaic. But hey!
>>if you want to speak like Chaucer or Shakespeare, feel free..
>>
>So the Scotchman who wrote to the Observer (or possibly Grauniad)
>recently, complaining that phonetic clues in the crossword made no sense
>to people with accents other than SE English, was wrong to describe
>himself and his compatriots as "Scotch"?
No, just archaic.
Of course it might also have been Nicholas Fairbairn using a nom de plume -
which would explain a *lot*
Ken MOORE
ad...@festival.ed.ac.uk "Adam Hamilton" writes:
My mother-in-law, whom I consider Scottish (she was brought up in
Berwickshire), calls herself Scotch.
--
Ken Moore
K...@hpsl.demon.co.uk
Iain McCord
=So the Scotchman who wrote to the Observer (or possibly Grauniad)
=recently, complaining that phonetic clues in the crossword made no sense
=to people with accents other than SE English, was wrong to describe
=himself and his compatriots as "Scotch"?
There may indeed be someone who calls himself 'Scotch', just as there
are some who call themselves 'idiot', this doesn't imply that he is
right, or that he is in a group of more than one member. Also note that
in this instance his compatriots consist of more than the population of
Scotland. And note that his letter may have been proofed before it saw
print, so there is no guarantee that's what he wrote.
Alan Smaill
So the Scotchman who wrote to the Observer (or possibly Grauniad)
recently, complaining that phonetic clues in the crossword made no sense
to people with accents other than SE English, was wrong to describe
himself and his compatriots as "Scotch"?
I thought that in that particular instance he was adopting an
exaggeratedly English tone in his letter in order to make his
point that the Grauniad habitually assumes its readership
is English.
--
Alan Smaill JANET: sma...@uk.ac.ed.lfcs
LFCS, Dept. of Computer Science UUCP: ..!mcvax!ukc!lfcs!smaill
University of Edinburgh ARPA: sma...@lfcs.ed.ac.uk
Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, UK. Tel: 031-650-2710
Alan Smaill
In article <39so00$p...@hawk.le.ac.uk>, A.J. Norman <n...@le.ac.uk> wrote:
=So the Scotchman who wrote to the Observer (or possibly Grauniad)
=recently, complaining that phonetic clues in the crossword made no sense
=to people with accents other than SE English, was wrong to describe
=himself and his compatriots as "Scotch"?
There may indeed be someone who calls himself 'Scotch', just as there
are some who call themselves 'idiot', this doesn't imply that he is
right, or that he is in a group of more than one member. Also note that
in this instance his compatriots consist of more than the population of
Scotland.
How do you work that out?
He was complaining collectively on behalf of the Scots.
And note that his letter may have been proofed before it saw
print, so there is no guarantee that's what he wrote.
Or, indeed, it may have been joke, (the language used, not the
complaint) as I understood it when I read it.
The Jackal...
>: favour, so stop whinging or we'll deport you somewhere even
>: wetter and colder. imagine the embarrassment we face, having
>: a neighbouring country where the men wear skirts. oh my.
The really sad matter is that the population in Scotland is actually
decreasing ! Not through lack of births but because the people are sick and
tired of being fucked over by the English government. Most of the people I
grew up with in Scotland have left for far better places than the British
Isles can offer... I for one chose America, I don't have to pay 2 and a half
pounds for a packet of cigarettes (more like 1.15) I don;t have to pay 400
quid a year in poll tax, I do have to pay for medical bills (which I'm not
very happy about but my medical insurance covers about 80% of the bills for a
far superior service). I live in a place where the sun shines & it only snowed
1 day last year. Sure I run a higher risk of getting shot over here, but at
least I can own a gun and take my chances... I can't make a career out of
unemployment (well not as easily anyway).. What England fails to realise is
that Scotland would be better off without her, actually I'm sure she knows
already and thats part of the problem.. Could England survive without
Scotland's tax money ? probably....
As for somewhere wetter and colder, how are you going to fit 5million Scots
into Hull ?
Barry "Off on a rant" Leitch....
*************************************************************
BARRY LEITCH
THE GLASWEGIAN TEXAN
MUSICIAN @ ORIGIN SYSTEMS
EX-OCEAN & EX-IMAGITEC
ble...@osipo01.origin.ea.com
ble...@origin.ea.com
Jason Scott
: In article <39h825$m...@news.bu.edu> bm...@bu.edu (Brendon McNamara) writes:
: >: favour, so stop whinging or we'll deport you somewhere even
: >: wetter and colder. imagine the embarrassment we face, having
: >: a neighbouring country where the men wear skirts. oh my.
: >: > Thomson (Note NO 'p')
: The really sad matter is that the population in Scotland is actually
: decreasing ! Not through lack of births but because the people are sick and
: tired of being fucked over by the English government. Most of the people I
: grew up with in Scotland have left for far better places than the British
: Isles can offer... I for one chose America, I don't have to pay 2 and a half
: pounds for a packet of cigarettes (more like 1.15) I don;t have to pay 400
: quid a year in poll tax, I do have to pay for medical bills (which I'm not
: very happy about but my medical insurance covers about 80% of the bills for a
: far superior service). I live in a place where the sun shines & it only snowed
: 1 day last year. Sure I run a higher risk of getting shot over here, but at
: least I can own a gun and take my chances... I can't make a career out of
: unemployment (well not as easily anyway).. What England fails to realise is
: that Scotland would be better off without her, actually I'm sure she knows
: already and thats part of the problem.. Could England survive without
: Scotland's tax money ? probably....
: As for somewhere wetter and colder, how are you going to fit 5million Scots
: into Hull ?
: Barry "Off on a rant" Leitch....
Wrong. If you had actually bothered to look at the U.K.'s finances
instead of living in your ex-pat's fantasy world about how wonderful an
independant Scotland would be, then you would know that England pays for
most of the social perks available in Scotland *(such as hospitals,
social security etc.). Without being part of the U.K. Scotland's income
would fall drastically ( a fact recognized and publically admitted by
the S.N.P.).
It's very easy to comment on one country from another because you don't
have to face the realities which are startlingly obvious over here -
such as the vast number of scots who work in England or the english who
work in Scotland, or the level of integration between these two parts of
our country.
Also, what's this "poll tax" thing, no-one in the U.K. pays it. Is it
some sort of fine for running away from the problems of one's country by
moving to another instead of trying to work to make things better?
John J Smith
Have they suddenly moved the fucking border?
Twat.
Smid
! sm...@fulcrum.co.uk, all opinions my own, strangely enough. !
! "There aint no justice. Just us." - Chumbawamba !
Matthew Huntbach
: The really sad matter is that the population in Scotland is actually
: decreasing ! Not through lack of births but because the people are sick and
: tired of being fucked over by the English government. Most of the people I
: grew up with in Scotland have left for far better places than the British
: Isles can offer... I for one chose America, I don't have to pay 2 and a half
: pounds for a packet of cigarettes (more like 1.15) I don;t have to pay 400
: quid a year in poll tax, I do have to pay for medical bills (which I'm not
: very happy about but my medical insurance covers about 80% of the bills for a
: far superior service).
With your anti-tax opinions, surely you should be grateful that the English
saved Scotland from yet more tax by voting for the low-tax Tory Party
when Scotland voted for the Labour Party whose policy is to increase tax.
With your anti-NHS, pro-private medicine opinions, again you're on the side of
the Tories and against your fellow Scots.
Matthew Huntbach
John J Smith
>In article <784477...@hpsl.demon.co.uk>,
>Ken MOORE <K...@hpsl.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>In article <Cyzwr...@festival.ed.ac.uk>
>> ad...@festival.ed.ac.uk "Adam Hamilton" writes:
>>
>>My mother-in-law, whom I consider Scottish (she was brought up in
>>Berwickshire), calls herself Scotch.
>
>Have they suddenly moved the fucking border?
Apparently so.
>Twat.
Indeed I am.
John J Smith
Matthew Huntbach <m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> wrote:
>The Jackal... (ble...@origin.ea.com) wrote:
>
>With your anti-tax opinions, surely you should be grateful that the English
>saved Scotland from yet more tax by voting for the low-tax Tory Party
>when Scotland voted for the Labour Party whose policy is to increase tax.
>With your anti-NHS, pro-private medicine opinions, again you're on the side
>of the Tories and against your fellow Scots.
This old carrot again. Just a point. The tories are the party of low INCOME
tax, not low tax, a common mistake. The VAT rises over the last fifteen
years should be enough to convince you of that. Around six months ago they
did do comparisons with old "High tax" labour, and new "Low Tax" tories and
the result was the tories were skimming more money than labour did, while
cutting back on services at the same time.
I am, however, speaking of people who earn under 40K. Over that, and you
do have a point.
Angus Walker
the town of Berwick-upon-Tweed, which is currently in England, in the county
of Northumberland.
--
Iain McCord
Alan Smaill <sma...@dcs.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
=In article <39tmsa$3...@todd.cs.strath.ac.uk> im...@cs.strath.ac.uk (Iain McCord) writes:
=How do you work that out?
=He was complaining collectively on behalf of the Scots.
Nope, he was complaining collectively on behalf of those not in possession
of a SE english accent, and using himself as an example of such a person.
He could equally have called himself a scouser, brummie, taff or anything
David Stevenson
>In article <784477...@hpsl.demon.co.uk>,
>>Berwickshire), calls herself Scotch.
>Have they suddenly moved the fucking border?
>Twat.
Smid using language like this brings thoughts of pots and kettles.
--
David Stevenson, JET Joint Undertaking +44 1235 465028
Email: d...@jet.uk or ho...@cix.compulink.co.uk
- Disclaimer: Please note that the above is a personal view and should not
be construed as an official comment from the JET project.
Adam Hamilton
|>
|> Wrong. If you had actually bothered to look at the U.K.'s finances
|> instead of living in your ex-pat's fantasy world about how wonderful an
|> independant Scotland would be, then you would know that England pays for
|> most of the social perks available in Scotland *(such as hospitals,
|> social security etc.).
marked as "regional" which amounts to perhaps 1 billion pounds per year. This doesn't
take into account the rest of Govt. expenditure. So when the English National Party
pours billions into Canary Wharf, or the M25 etc. this doesn't get counted. When you
factor this in it turns out that the Scots are supporting the English and not the other
way round.
|> Without being part of the U.K. Scotland's income
|> would fall drastically ( a fact recognized and publically admitted by
|> the S.N.P.).
Source, please.
Matthew Huntbach
: In article <39vgvq$e...@beta.qmw.ac.uk>,
: Matthew Huntbach <m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> wrote:
: >The Jackal... (ble...@origin.ea.com) wrote:
: >
: >With your anti-tax opinions, surely you should be grateful that the English
: >saved Scotland from yet more tax by voting for the low-tax Tory Party
: >when Scotland voted for the Labour Party whose policy is to increase tax.
: >With your anti-NHS, pro-private medicine opinions, again you're on the side
: >of the Tories and against your fellow Scots.
: This old carrot again. Just a point. The tories are the party of low INCOME
: tax, not low tax, a common mistake. The VAT rises over the last fifteen
: years should be enough to convince you of that. Around six months ago they
: did do comparisons with old "High tax" labour, and new "Low Tax" tories and
: the result was the tories were skimming more money than labour did, while
: cutting back on services at the same time.
I agree, but at least the Tories "all that matters is tax cuts" rhetoric is
more in line with Mr.Jackal's than is the rhetoric of the parties most Scots
vote for. Of course what the Tories are finding is that short-term tax cuts
don't pay off in the long run as you simply end up having to pay for crisis
management having caused all sorts of problems by failing to invest and
maintain essential services.
Matthew Huntbach
David Morning
> Wrong. If you had actually bothered to look at the U.K.'s finances
> instead of living in your ex-pat's fantasy world about how wonderful an
> independant Scotland would be, then you would know that England pays for
> most of the social perks available in Scotland *(such as hospitals,
> social security etc.).
I think you really ought to go and recheck you're figures, this time
including uncounted public handouts such as London Weighting, Docklands
Light Railway, Canary Wharf, etc....
> Without being part of the U.K. Scotland's income
> would fall drastically ( a fact recognized and publically admitted by
> the S.N.P.).
First I've heard of this, but even if it is true, why is it when Scots mention
leaving the union the English all rush to tell us how badly off we'd be and
that they really do care for our welfare? Or is the reality that the loss of
substantial oil revenue, currently squandered on giving fat cats in the
South East, would make a severe dent in plans for more tax cuts for those fat
cats and enlarging the M25?
Why the apparent care for our welfare, when they were quite happy to use us
as a proving ground for despicable acts like the Poll Tax and a storage
depot for nukes? ( and free of charge at that)
Enquiring minds want to know?
Damien Cox
Isn't Berwick a bone of contention between Scotland and England? Hasn't it
been transfered between England and Scotland over and back many times, even
after 1707? Doesn't Berwick play in the Scottish Football system?
Damian.
Chris Cooke
kccb0> Wrong. If you had actually bothered to look at the U.K.'s finances
kccb0> instead of living in your ex-pat's fantasy world about how wonderful
kccb0> an independant Scotland would be, then you would know that England
kccb0> pays for most of the social perks available in Scotland *(such as
kccb0> hospitals, social security etc.).
Wild fantasy.
kccb0> Without being part of the U.K. Scotland's income would fall
kccb0> drastically ( a fact recognized and publically admitted by the
kccb0> S.N.P.).
Lie.
--
-- Chris.
Bunnies can and will go to France.
Chris Cooke
mmh> With your anti-tax opinions, surely you should be grateful that the
mmh> English saved Scotland from yet more tax by voting for the low-tax Tory
mmh> Party when Scotland voted for the Labour Party whose policy is to
mmh> increase tax.
Matthew! I would have expected you of all people to recognise that 39%
Labour support does NOT equal "Scotland voted for the Labour Party"...
Count our votes please, not our First Past The Post election results.
David Morning
>In article <SMAILL.94N...@papa.dcs.ed.ac.uk> sma...@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Alan Smaill) writes:
>>In article <39so00$p...@hawk.le.ac.uk> n...@le.ac.uk (A.J. Norman) writes:
>>
>> So the Scotchman who wrote to the Observer (or possibly Grauniad)
>> recently, complaining that phonetic clues in the crossword made no sense
>> to people with accents other than SE English, was wrong to describe
>> himself and his compatriots as "Scotch"?
>>
>>I thought that in that particular instance he was adopting an
>>exaggeratedly English tone in his letter in order to make his
>>point that the Grauniad habitually assumes its readership
>>is English.
>Well, isn't the Guardian (sorry for the mis-spelling) an *English*
>paper?
Hmmm...and there was me thinking it was a UK national paper....Oh! You mean
it's *printed* in England?
>Don't the Scots have their own papers?
We have *lots* of papers including, The Sunday Post, The Peoples Friend, The
Dundee Argonaut, Paisley and Renfrewshire Gazette, Greenock Telegraph. Why?
> And stop bothering us English.
But we *like* bothering you English..
Xian the Desk Lizard
\ Berwickshire is and always has been in Scotland, except for ...
\ the town of Berwick-upon-Tweed, which is currently in England, in the county
\ of Northumberland.
However, it is always named separately on official documents.
--
Xian the Desk Lizard | Email: c.d.a....@bradford.ac.uk | New .plan!
Mostly depressed, | finger cdah...@muser.brad.ac.uk|more
part-time thinker, | Fundamentalism today is what Americans claim they
full-time dosser | fled Europe to escape. -- jon on a.a
David Hough
>tax, not low tax, a common mistake. The VAT rises over the last fifteen
>years should be enough to convince you of that. Around six months ago they
>did do comparisons with old "High tax" labour, and new "Low Tax" tories and
>the result was the tories were skimming more money than labour did, while
>cutting back on services at the same time.
>
direct taxation and pay for it by increased indirect taxation. You have
to admit they did stick to that one!
Dave
--
*****************************************************************************
* G4WRW @ GB7WRW.#41.GBR.EU AX25 * *
* da...@llondel.demon.co.uk Internet * Stop the World! I want to get off! *
* g4...@g4wrw.ampr.org Amprnet * *
*****************************************************************************
Dick Jackson
>
> So the Scotchman who wrote to the Observer (or possibly Grauniad)
> recently, complaining that phonetic clues in the crossword made no sense
> to people with accents other than SE English, was wrong to describe
> himself and his compatriots as "Scotch"?
>
>I thought that in that particular instance he was adopting an
>exaggeratedly English tone in his letter in order to make his
>point that the Grauniad habitually assumes its readership
>is English.
Well, isn't the Guardian (sorry for the mis-spelling) an *English*
paper? Don't the Scots have their own papers? If they don't like
foreign crossword puzzles they should jolly well make up their
own. And stop bothering us English.
Dick Jackson
A. Grant
>Hmmm...and there was me thinking it was a UK national paper....Oh! You mean
>it's *printed* in England?
Published in London and Manchester.
Steve Whorwood
>In article <39vgvq$e...@beta.qmw.ac.uk>,
>Matthew Huntbach <m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> wrote:
>>The Jackal... (ble...@origin.ea.com) wrote:
>>
>>With your anti-tax opinions, surely you should be grateful that the English
>>saved Scotland from yet more tax by voting for the low-tax Tory Party
>>when Scotland voted for the Labour Party whose policy is to increase tax.
>>With your anti-NHS, pro-private medicine opinions, again you're on the side
>>of the Tories and against your fellow Scots.
>This old carrot again. Just a point. The tories are the party of low INCOME
>tax, not low tax, a common mistake.
Yes - apparently one they themselves have made over the last 15 years,
judging by their pronouncements. Perhaps someone should tell them the
difference.
>The VAT rises over the last fifteen
>years should be enough to convince you of that. Around six months ago they
>did do comparisons with old "High tax" labour, and new "Low Tax" tories and
>the result was the tories were skimming more money than labour did, while
>cutting back on services at the same time.
>I am, however, speaking of people who earn under 40K. Over that, and you
>do have a point.
I heard on the radio, a couple of weeks ago, that there are a greater
proportion of people living in what is defined as poverty than at any
time since 1896.
--
Steve Whorwood
e-mail st...@vertex.demon.co.uk
Ian McNally
>
>In article <39vgvq$e...@beta.qmw.ac.uk>,
>Matthew Huntbach <m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> wrote:
>>The Jackal... (ble...@origin.ea.com) wrote:
>>
>>With your anti-tax opinions, surely you should be grateful that the English
>>saved Scotland from yet more tax by voting for the low-tax Tory Party
>>when Scotland voted for the Labour Party whose policy is to increase tax.
>>With your anti-NHS, pro-private medicine opinions, again you're on the side
>>of the Tories and against your fellow Scots.
Speaking as a guy that earns over 40K, I still agree with you about the basic
fascist nature of the UK.
I hate it, but I can't do a thing about it unless I have the support from those that
want something to happen.
Talk to me
cheers
ian mc
Alan Smaill
Without being part of the U.K. Scotland's income
would fall drastically ( a fact recognized and publically admitted by
the S.N.P.).
Would you care to provide any evidence that this "fact" is publicly
admitted by the SNP?
--
Alan Smaill JANET: sma...@uk.ac.ed.lfcs
LFCS, Dept. of Computer Science UUCP: ..!mcvax!ukc!lfcs!smaill
University of Edinburgh ARPA: sma...@lfcs.ed.ac.uk
Philip Hugh Hunt
Stew...@tuareg.demon.co.uk "Stewart Parkinson" writes:
> In article <1994Nov12....@vertex.demon.co.uk>
> st...@vertex.demon.co.uk "Steve Whorwood" writes:
> >
> > I heard on the radio, a couple of weeks ago, that there are a greater
> > proportion of people living in what is defined as poverty than at any
> > time since 1896.
> >
>
> the above is a nonsensical statement.
Not quite nonsensical, although I can see what you mean.
No doubt the Tories are very proud of their achievement of getting the
level of inequality back up to what it was 100 years ago. It's probably
what they mean by "Victorian values".
--
....Phil Hunt....philip@storcomp.demon.co.uk....
Stewart Parkinson
>
> I heard on the radio, a couple of weeks ago, that there are a greater
> proportion of people living in what is defined as poverty than at any
> time since 1896.
>
Then possibly you should ask yourself how they define 'poverty', since
the above is a nonsensical statement. 'Poverty' thses days is
defined as having an income that is less than half the national
average.
> --
> Steve Whorwood
> e-mail st...@vertex.demon.co.uk
>
--
Stewart Parkinson
"One should examine oneself for a very long
time before thinking of condemning others." Moliere
Andrew Clarke
>Ken MOORE <K...@hpsl.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>In article <Cyzwr...@festival.ed.ac.uk>
>> ad...@festival.ed.ac.uk "Adam Hamilton" writes:
>>
>>My mother-in-law, whom I consider Scottish (she was brought up in
>>Berwickshire), calls herself Scotch.
>
>Have they suddenly moved the fucking border?
>
>Twat.
>
is a Scottische county.
Andrew Clarke
Steve Whorwood
>In article <1994Nov12....@vertex.demon.co.uk>
> st...@vertex.demon.co.uk "Steve Whorwood" writes:
>>
>> I heard on the radio, a couple of weeks ago, that there are a greater
>> proportion of people living in what is defined as poverty than at any
>> time since 1896.
>>
>Then possibly you should ask yourself how they define 'poverty', since
>the above is a nonsensical statement. 'Poverty' thses days is
>defined as having an income that is less than half the national
>average.
How else would you describe it? Perhaps you'd like to contrast their
lot with the folk of ,say, the fourteenth century. By that criteria,
even the poorest are living the life of Riley. I mean, houses with real
glass windows, inside khasis, electric lights, transistor radios - the
list is endless.
Andrew Halket
>First I've heard of this, but even if it is true, why is it when Scots mention
>leaving the union the English all rush to tell us how badly off we'd be and
>that they really do care for our welfare? Or is the reality that the loss of
>substantial oil revenue, currently squandered on giving fat cats in the
>South East, would make a severe dent in plans for more tax cuts for those fat
>cats and enlarging the M25?
oil revenue is somewhat less than 1% of GDP
Andrew
========================================================================
Mail: Andrew Halket #####
The Technology Partnership Ltd #####
Melbourn, Royston #####
Herts. SG8 6EE #####
Tel: +44 763 262626 #####
Fax: +44 763 261582 THE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERSHIP
EMail: ar...@techprt.co.uk #####
========================================================================
Terence Wright
and I don't drink whisky. Is this allowed?
Terence Wright
Pas d'elle yeux Rhone que nous! ;-)
huxley
> In article <39h825$m...@news.bu.edu> bm...@bu.edu (Brendon McNamara) writes:
> >: favour, so stop whinging or we'll deport you somewhere even
> >: wetter and colder. imagine the embarrassment we face, having
> >: a neighbouring country where the men wear skirts. oh my.
> >: > Thomson (Note NO 'p')
>
> The really sad matter is that the population in Scotland is actually
> decreasing ! Not through lack of births but because the people are sick and
> tired of being fucked over by the English government.
that is the _british_ government. the scots are quite free
to vote in it as they please like other parts of the uk.
there is an argument as to the fairness of the system we
currently have but it still doesn't make it an english
government.
> Most of the people I
> grew up with in Scotland have left for far better places than the British
> Isles can offer...
are you sure they didn't actually throw you out?
> I for one chose America, I don't have to pay 2 and a half
> pounds for a packet of cigarettes (more like 1.15)
cheap tabs! i'm moving....
> I don't have to pay 400 quid poll tax.
try listening to the bbc world service, they get it in far
off and unknown corners of the globe. they carry this thing
called news. little tidbits like the `poll tax' being dumped
due to inherent crapness and no one bothering or being able
to afford it.
> I do have to pay for medical bills (which I'm not
> very happy about but my medical insurance covers about 80% of the bills for a
> far superior service).
well, it's nice if you have the money initially to pay for
it. unlike a significant proportion of the american
population. there are also some very interesting clauses in
a lot of policies, so watch what you catch and that you
don't catch it too often, mind.
> I live in a place where the sun shines & it only snowed
> 1 day last year.
i like snow far more than sun.
> Sure I run a higher risk of getting shot over here, but at
> least I can own a gun and take my chances...
mommmmmm! can i have a gun? yes, i would rather have a real-life
enactment of the shootout at the ok corral than lose my
video recorder to some fiendish robber. guns are good. i'd
feel far far safer knowing that everyone had a gun, even the
school children. in fact why have one when you can own
several. just in case those damn commies come riding into
town.
> I can't make a career out of unemployment (well not as easily
> anyway)..
yes, i am planning to buy a yatch with my next giro. it's so
easy, i really don't know why people bother working. pass
the cocaine, luv... and don't knock the champers over again.
> What England fails to realise is
> that Scotland would be better off without her, actually I'm sure she knows
> already and thats part of the problem.. Could England survive without
> Scotland's tax money ? probably....
my, a collective consciousness, `she' does, does `she'? what
inspired reasoning, it gives me a headache just trying keep
up with your speeding logic.
As for somewhere wetter and colder, how are you going to fit 5million Scots
> into Hull ?
i was thinking of cleethorpes.
> THE GLASWEGIAN TEXAN
tell me, do you have this fear of knocking on your
neighbours' doors after midnight?
love,
huxley.
call me for tips on anglo-american diplomacy!
Stewart Parkinson
st...@vertex.demon.co.uk "Steve Whorwood" writes:
Although you use irony, you are correct. Poverty would imply a lack
of those items which make life possible. This could not be said
to be the case in the UK, where poverty seems too often defined as
not being able to afford a second television.
>
> --
> Steve Whorwood
> e-mail st...@vertex.demon.co.uk
>
--
Martin Ackroyd
[blah blah blah]
: pounds for a packet of cigarettes (more like 1.15) I don;t have to pay 400
: quid a year in poll tax, I do have to pay for medical bills (which I'm not
Barry, You might take a look at the fine print of your US medical insurance.
Check if it covers you for TWO serious problems in succession. Does
it cover you for mental problems? - (no personal implication, you understand).
--
Martin A | "Rigorous argument from inapplicable assumptions
| produces the world's most durable nonsense"
mar...@ghoul.bri.hp.com |
Graham R Pearson
>In article <Cz3Ly...@fulcrum.co.uk>, John J Smith <sm...@fulcrum.co.uk> wrote:
>>In article <784477...@hpsl.demon.co.uk>,
>>Ken MOORE <K...@hpsl.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>In article <Cyzwr...@festival.ed.ac.uk>
>>> ad...@festival.ed.ac.uk "Adam Hamilton" writes:
>>>
>>>My mother-in-law, whom I consider Scottish (she was brought up in
>>>Berwickshire), calls herself Scotch.
>>
>>Have they suddenly moved the fucking border?
English twat. (Wow, 2 insults! :-> )
Berwick_shire_ is in Scotland. I walked the Southern Upland Way (wholly in
Scotland) this summer; near the Eastern end I passed a reservoir with an old
'Berwickshire County Council' sign.
The town of Berwick itself has changed hands repeatedly during history. Berwick
still play in the Scottish (not Scotch) league.
Interesting fact : Berwick is still at war with Germany. This is because,
under the Treaty of Union, after an announcement is made in parliament in
London, several days must elapse before the announcement applies in Scotland.
This was to allow time for a messenger to ride from London to Edinburgh and read
the announcement in Parliament Square. During these few days in 1945 between
England being declared not to be at war with Germany and the same happening for
Scotland, Berwick was transferred from Scotland to England, and thus missed
out on both declarations. The town of Berwick is, therefore, still at war
with germany.
Michael Kilpatrick
>This was to allow time for a messenger to ride from London to Edinburgh and read
>the announcement in Parliament Square. During these few days in 1945 between
>England being declared not to be at war with Germany and the same happening for
>Scotland, Berwick was transferred from Scotland to England, and thus missed
>out on both declarations. The town of Berwick is, therefore, still at war
>with germany.
Why was it transfered, yet again, in 1945?
Michael
Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats
--
"Leeds are losing, Nigel" | Rugby League WWW Home Page
"How do you know, Peter?" | http://www.brad.ac.uk/~cgrussel/
"It's five minutes since they | finger cgru...@muser.brad.ac.uk for more
kicked off" | details, it's long so redirect it to a file
Graham R Pearson
>independant Scotland would be, then you would know that England pays for
>most of the social perks available in Scotland *(such as hospitals,
>social security etc.). Without being part of the U.K. Scotland's income
>would fall drastically ( a fact recognized and publically admitted by
>the S.N.P.).
So why are the English so desparate to keep the union?
Graham.
cee...@cee.hw.ac.uk
Peter H. M. Brooks
>
> How else would you describe it? Perhaps you'd like to contrast their
> lot with the folk of ,say, the fourteenth century. By that criteria,
criterion
> even the poorest are living the life of Riley. I mean, houses with real
> glass windows, inside khasis, electric lights, transistor radios - the
> list is endless.
>
Exactly. The poor are simply not taxed enough. Tax ought to be an
incentive to earn enough to live, and then, when rich enough, to
earn enough not to care about tax.
This is the evil of progressive taxation. Everybody ought to be charged
6,000 a year flat rate with no VAT, corporation, income, capital gains
or other wicked tax. Simply deport those who can't pay.
It is unfortunate that the person who thought of taxing by percentage
was not burned at the stake as the clearly evil creature that it was.
--
Peter H. M. Brooks
Simon Patience
|> In article <Cyzwr...@festival.ed.ac.uk>
|> ad...@festival.ed.ac.uk "Adam Hamilton" writes:
|>
|> > writes:
|> >|> (excerpt from chambers dictionary)..
|> >|> _Scotch_, ..... in common use even among Scottish dialect speakers
|> >
|> > Well, they got that completely wrong, didn't they.
|>
|> My mother-in-law, whom I consider Scottish (she was brought up in
|> Berwickshire), calls herself Scotch.
So? I know a woman who calls herself Brandy.
Simon.
--
Simon Patience Phone: (415) 390-4644
Silicon Graphics, Inc FAX: (415) 390-3542
2011 N. Shoreline Boulevard Email: s...@engr.sgi.com
Mountain View, CA 94043
Douggie Green
phi...@storcomp.demon.co.uk "Philip Hugh Hunt" writes:
> In article <784800...@tuareg.demon.co.uk>
> Stew...@tuareg.demon.co.uk "Stewart Parkinson" writes:
> > > How else would you describe it? Perhaps you'd like to contrast their
> > > lot with the folk of ,say, the fourteenth century. By that criteria,
> > > even the poorest are living the life of Riley. I mean, houses with real
> > > glass windows, inside khasis, electric lights, transistor radios - the
> > > list is endless.
> >
> > Although you use irony, you are correct. Poverty would imply a lack
> > of those items which make life possible. This could not be said
> > to be the case in the UK, where poverty seems too often defined as
> > not being able to afford a second television.
>
Nah, poverty is not being able to afford satellite tv.
>
> Everyone who is alive, has by definition those things that make life
> possible.
Air, food (of whatever quality), shelter (arches, shopfront, etc. (hostels
sound nice...))
> Therefore by your definition no-one is living in poverty
> (although some people might be dying in poverty).
>
You hadn't noticed?
> What if I was ill, and I needed an operation costing #1000000 to save my
> life. If I didn't have the money, would I be poor?
>
No, dead.
Seriously though, poverty is relative, and I think that the current
definition of poverty in the UK is existence on less than 50% of the
average wage (this is probably worked out by numbers dependant on the wage).
This covers a lot of people (and no, I don't have the exact figures).
If I did, I'd probably get soo maad I'd...
sorry 'bout that...nearly got carried away.
--
Douggie Dou...@blissinx.demon.co.uk
-- Take a peek - collapse the wave! -- Well, well, four small kittens! --
Perception alters reality
Steve Whorwood
>In article <1994Nov13....@vertex.demon.co.uk>
> st...@vertex.demon.co.uk "Steve Whorwood" writes:
>> In <784721...@tuareg.demon.co.uk> Stew...@tuareg.demon.co.uk (Stewart
>> Parkinson) writes:
>>
>> >In article <1994Nov12....@vertex.demon.co.uk>
>> > st...@vertex.demon.co.uk "Steve Whorwood" writes:
>>
>> >>
>> >> I heard on the radio, a couple of weeks ago, that there are a greater
>> >> proportion of people living in what is defined as poverty than at any
>> >> time since 1896.
>> >>
>>
>> >Then possibly you should ask yourself how they define 'poverty', since
>> >the above is a nonsensical statement. 'Poverty' thses days is
>> >defined as having an income that is less than half the national
>> >average.
>>
>> How else would you describe it? Perhaps you'd like to contrast their
>> lot with the folk of ,say, the fourteenth century. By that criteria,
>> even the poorest are living the life of Riley. I mean, houses with real
>> glass windows, inside khasis, electric lights, transistor radios - the
>> list is endless.
>>
>Although you use irony, you are correct. Poverty would imply a lack
>of those items which make life possible. This could not be said
>to be the case in the UK, where poverty seems too often defined as
>not being able to afford a second television.
Rubbish. You imply that, by definition anyone alive today is not living
in poverty. Perhaps you can be more specific in what you define as
poverty. Or is that it?
You appear a little flippant about what "seems too often defined" as
poverty. Are you aware that, for instance, the single persons income
support is UKP 48 per week? That's supposed to feed, clothe, pay for
fuel bills, water rates, etc, etc. It also has to be used to make up
the shortfall in DSS payments to the mortgage lender, should you be
unfortunate enough to be one of the Tory "right to buy" ers. How much
do you think *you'd* have left over for "luxuries"?
Andrew Halket
>Graham.
Who says we are? Independence for England!
Philip Hugh Hunt
> > lot with the folk of ,say, the fourteenth century. By that criteria,
> > even the poorest are living the life of Riley. I mean, houses with real
> > glass windows, inside khasis, electric lights, transistor radios - the
> > list is endless.
>
> Although you use irony, you are correct. Poverty would imply a lack
> of those items which make life possible. This could not be said
> to be the case in the UK, where poverty seems too often defined as
> not being able to afford a second television.
Everyone who is alive, has by definition those things that make life
possible. Therefore by your definition no-one is living in poverty
(although some people might be dying in poverty).
What if I was ill, and I needed an operation costing #1000000 to save my
life. If I didn't have the money, would I be poor?
--
....Phil Hunt....philip@storcomp.demon.co.uk....
John J Smith
Graham R Pearson <cee...@cee.hw.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <Cz3oE...@fulcrum.co.uk> sm...@fulcrum.co.uk (John J Smith) writes:
>>In article <Cz3Ly...@fulcrum.co.uk>, John J Smith <sm...@fulcrum.co.uk> wrote:
>>>In article <784477...@hpsl.demon.co.uk>,
>>>Ken MOORE <K...@hpsl.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>In article <Cyzwr...@festival.ed.ac.uk>
>>>> ad...@festival.ed.ac.uk "Adam Hamilton" writes:
>>>>
>>>>My mother-in-law, whom I consider Scottish (she was brought up in
>>>>Berwickshire), calls herself Scotch.
>>>
>>>Have they suddenly moved the fucking border?
>
>English twat. (Wow, 2 insults! :-> )
>
>Berwick_shire_ is in Scotland. I walked the Southern Upland Way (wholly in
>Scotland) this summer; near the Eastern end I passed a reservoir with an old
>'Berwickshire County Council' sign.
>
>The town of Berwick itself has changed hands repeatedly during history.
>Berwick still play in the Scottish (not Scotch) league.
I think this is about the fifth reply to this mail item, in which I fucked up.
I think I posted the first correction (according to my newsreader), but yet,
another four appeared (could be more, we have a short expiry time). A simple
question: am I the only one who marks mail items as unread, then reads the
rest of thread before replying to them?
Not as if it happens often (the same day I've read the fifth duplicate
correction on the cause of Bill Hicks death in uk.media).
Smid
! sm...@fulcrum.co.uk, all opinions my own, strangely enough. !
! "There aint no justice. Just us." - Chumbawamba !
David Johnston
>Interesting fact : Berwick is still at war with Germany. This is because,
>under the Treaty of Union, after an announcement is made in parliament in
>London, several days must elapse before the announcement applies in Scotland.
>This was to allow time for a messenger to ride from London to Edinburgh and read
>the announcement in Parliament Square. During these few days in 1945 between
>England being declared not to be at war with Germany and the same happening for
>Scotland, Berwick was transferred from Scotland to England, and thus missed
>out on both declarations. The town of Berwick is, therefore, still at war
>with germany.
I think this may be an urban legend. I heard it was Russia and the Crimean
War, and that it had all been sorted out anyway (not that Moscow was
particularly concerned).
Now this is true: somebody I know reckons he moved the sign for the border on
one of the roads into Northumberland (near Deadwater, Kielder), and he says
this makes him the first person to get land off the English since 1707. I
think it amounted to 10 feet of tarmac and a dead sheep.
David Johnston
Stewart Parkinson
st...@vertex.demon.co.uk "Steve Whorwood" writes:
Why, thank you.
> You imply that, by definition anyone alive today is not living
> in poverty.
Oh no, there are millions upon millions of people living in dire
conditions. Very few of these live in the UK, however.
> Perhaps you can be more specific in what you define as
> poverty. Or is that it?
>
My definition of 'true' poverty would be the inability to consistently
acquire those items deemed essential for human existence and a
modicum of comfort; food, shelter and so on.
> You appear a little flippant about what "seems too often defined" as
> poverty. Are you aware that, for instance, the single persons income
> support is UKP 48 per week?
Yes.
> That's supposed to feed, clothe, pay for
> fuel bills, water rates, etc, etc. It also has to be used to make up
> the shortfall in DSS payments to the mortgage lender, should you be
> unfortunate enough to be one of the Tory "right to buy" ers. How much
> do you think *you'd* have left over for "luxuries"?
Nothing.
My point is not that people in the UK struggle to make ends meet, nor
that we should denigrate such struggles where this would be invalid,
but rather that our definition of 'poverty' is half of the average
national income, and that this is in many ways an absurd definition.
> --
> Steve Whorwood
> e-mail st...@vertex.demon.co.uk
>
--
Stewart Parkinson
Dou...@blissinx.demon.co.uk "Douggie Green" writes:
> In article <784835...@storcomp.demon.co.uk>
> phi...@storcomp.demon.co.uk "Philip Hugh Hunt" writes:
>
> > In article <784800...@tuareg.demon.co.uk>
> > Stew...@tuareg.demon.co.uk "Stewart Parkinson" writes:
> > > > How else would you describe it? Perhaps you'd like to contrast their
> > > > lot with the folk of ,say, the fourteenth century. By that criteria,
> > > > even the poorest are living the life of Riley. I mean, houses with real
> > > > glass windows, inside khasis, electric lights, transistor radios - the
> > > > list is endless.
> > >
> > > Although you use irony, you are correct. Poverty would imply a lack
> > > of those items which make life possible. This could not be said
> > > to be the case in the UK, where poverty seems too often defined as
> > > not being able to afford a second television.
> >
> Nah, poverty is not being able to afford satellite tv.
> >
> > Everyone who is alive, has by definition those things that make life
> > possible.
>
> Air, food (of whatever quality), shelter (arches, shopfront, etc. (hostels
> sound nice...))
>
> > Therefore by your definition no-one is living in poverty
> > (although some people might be dying in poverty).
> >
> You hadn't noticed?
>
How many people died of poverty related illness last year in the UK ?
> > What if I was ill, and I needed an operation costing #1000000 to save my
> > life. If I didn't have the money, would I be poor?
> >
> No, dead.
> Seriously though, poverty is relative, and I think that the current
> definition of poverty in the UK is existence on less than 50% of the
> average wage (this is probably worked out by numbers dependant on the wage).
This is correct.
> This covers a lot of people (and no, I don't have the exact figures).
> If I did, I'd probably get soo maad I'd...
> sorry 'bout that...nearly got carried away.
>
About a quarter of the UK population. Which highlights the absurdity
of the definition.
> --
> Douggie Dou...@blissinx.demon.co.uk
>
> -- Take a peek - collapse the wave! -- Well, well, four small kittens! --
> Perception alters reality
>
--
Stewart Parkinson
> In article <784800...@tuareg.demon.co.uk>
> Stew...@tuareg.demon.co.uk "Stewart Parkinson" writes:
> > > How else would you describe it? Perhaps you'd like to contrast their
> > > lot with the folk of ,say, the fourteenth century. By that criteria,
> > > even the poorest are living the life of Riley. I mean, houses with real
> > > glass windows, inside khasis, electric lights, transistor radios - the
> > > list is endless.
> >
> > Although you use irony, you are correct. Poverty would imply a lack
> > of those items which make life possible. This could not be said
> > to be the case in the UK, where poverty seems too often defined as
> > not being able to afford a second television.
>
>
> Everyone who is alive, has by definition those things that make life
> possible.
Sorry, I had meant passable.
> Therefore by your definition no-one is living in poverty
> (although some people might be dying in poverty).
>
Many people are dying in poverty. Few of them live in the UK.
> What if I was ill, and I needed an operation costing #1000000 to save my
> life. If I didn't have the money, would I be poor?
>
Errr...no. You would go to your GP, and depending on the circumstances
be referred to a hospital for treatment. What's your point ?
>
> --
> ....Phil Hunt....philip@storcomp.demon.co.uk....
Stewart Parkinson
<snip>
OK, my definition of 'poverty':
An average lifespan of less than fifty years, and falling.
An average per capita income of less than USD 500.
Infant mortality of more than forty per thousand live births.
Average decline in food available for consumption year on year.
Limited or non-existent access to clean water.
Limited or non-existent access to any form of healthcare.
Will that do ?
Alison Wyld - SunSoft ICNC
>
>
> Interesting fact : Berwick is still at war with Germany. This is because,
> under the Treaty of Union, after an announcement is made in parliament in
> London, several days must elapse before the announcement applies in Scotland.
> This was to allow time for a messenger to ride from London to Edinburgh and read
> the announcement in Parliament Square. During these few days in 1945 between
> England being declared not to be at war with Germany and the same happening for
> Scotland, Berwick was transferred from Scotland to England, and thus missed
> out on both declarations. The town of Berwick is, therefore, still at war
> with germany.
Are you SURE ?!
I've heard this story told about the Crimean War, but WW2 is
a new one...
Bye
Alison
Chris Cooke
cendbj> I think this may be an urban legend. I heard it was Russia and the
cendbj> Crimean War, and that it had all been sorted out anyway (not that
cendbj> Moscow was particularly concerned).
Yes. The Berwick-Russia war was officially ended a year or two ago I think.
And Berwick-upon-Tweed has been in England since 18-tumpty-tum, not since
1945.
--
-- Chris.
Gareth Mark Evans
Path: sirius.tadpole.co.uk!cam.news.pipex.net!pipex!sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk!dundee.ac.uk!dcox
From: dc...@mcs.dundee.ac.uk (Damien Cox)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.british,soc.culture.celtic,soc.culture.british,uk.politics,uk.misc
Date: 11 Nov 1994 15:17:39 GMT
Organization: Ar an Ramhlas san Albain.
Lines: 12
References: <frraj.137...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> <1994Nov8.1...@jet.uk> <784557...@angus.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tay-2.mcs.dundee.ac.uk
Xref: sirius.tadpole.co.uk soc.culture.celtic:36009 soc.culture.british:83806 uk.politics:34082 uk.misc:56915
> Isn't Berwick a bone of contention between Scotland and England? Hasn't it
> been transfered between England and Scotland over and back many times, even
> after 1707? Doesn't Berwick play in the Scottish Football system?
Only 'cos they'rer so crap even Everton could draw against them!
Gareth
Wallace Venable
>In article <784874...@blissinx.demon.co.uk>
>> In article <784835...@storcomp.demon.co.uk>
>> > In article <784800...@tuareg.demon.co.uk>
>> Seriously though, poverty is relative, and I think that the current
>> definition of poverty in the UK is existence on less than 50% of the
>> average wage
>> This covers a lot of people (and no, I don't have the exact figures).
>About a quarter of the UK population. Which highlights the absurdity
>of the definition.
The "Authorities" here in West Virginia (USA) just released a survey
showing that about 20% of the population lives in substandard housing. One
of the definitions of substandard was "built before 1940." By this measure,
most of the Royal family lives in substandard housing.
Such subjective "data" make me distrust any statement about
numerical levels of deprivation, particularly when comming from
functionaries whose "importance" increases as the problem does.
Tim Reynolds
> > >Then possibly you should ask yourself how they define 'poverty', since
> > >the above is a nonsensical statement. 'Poverty' thses days is
> > >defined as having an income that is less than half the national
> > >average.
> >
> > How else would you describe it? Perhaps you'd like to contrast their
> > lot with the folk of ,say, the fourteenth century. By that criteria,
> > even the poorest are living the life of Riley. I mean, houses with real
> > glass windows, inside khasis, electric lights, transistor radios - the
> > list is endless.
> >
>
> Although you use irony, you are correct. Poverty would imply a lack
> of those items which make life possible. This could not be said
> to be the case in the UK, where poverty seems too often defined as
> not being able to afford a second television.
Poverty is certainly relative: In an earlier phase of employment I used to
visit a variety ofdifferent people in their homes and I was surprised by the
negative correlation between income ane TV size / HiFi equipment specification.
The first time I ever saw a TV with a 36" screen was in the lounge of a family
who claimed they didn't have enough money to buy food.
Following up from that, in the first days of Satellite TV, the only dishes you
saw were in council estates or the most deprived parts of the Welsh Valleys.
Tim.
Melinda Pfeiffer
>>
>> How else would you describe it? Perhaps you'd like to contrast their
>> lot with the folk of ,say, the fourteenth century. By that criteria,
> criterion
>> even the poorest are living the life of Riley. I mean, houses with real
>> glass windows, inside khasis, electric lights, transistor radios - the
>> list is endless.
>>
>Exactly. The poor are simply not taxed enough. Tax ought to be an
>incentive to earn enough to live, and then, when rich enough, to
>earn enough not to care about tax.
>This is the evil of progressive taxation. Everybody ought to be charged
>6,000 a year flat rate with no VAT, corporation, income, capital gains
>or other wicked tax. Simply deport those who can't pay.
>It is unfortunate that the person who thought of taxing by percentage
>was not burned at the stake as the clearly evil creature that it was.
>--
>Peter H. M. Brooks
Are you serious??? I didn't detect any smileys, but maybe your post was meant
to be ironic, anyway.
Melinda
cen...@clust.hw.ac.uk
>In article <Cz3oE...@fulcrum.co.uk> sm...@fulcrum.co.uk (John J Smith) writes:
>>In article <Cz3Ly...@fulcrum.co.uk>, John J Smith <sm...@fulcrum.co.uk> wrote:
>>>In article <784477...@hpsl.demon.co.uk>,
>>>Ken MOORE <K...@hpsl.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>In article <Cyzwr...@festival.ed.ac.uk>
>>>> ad...@festival.ed.ac.uk "Adam Hamilton" writes:
>>>>
>>>>My mother-in-law, whom I consider Scottish (she was brought up in
>>>>Berwickshire), calls herself Scotch.
>>>
>>>Have they suddenly moved the fucking border?
>
>English twat. (Wow, 2 insults! :-> )
>
>Berwick_shire_ is in Scotland. I walked the Southern Upland Way (wholly in
>Scotland) this summer; near the Eastern end I passed a reservoir with an old
>'Berwickshire County Council' sign.
>
>The town of Berwick itself has changed hands repeatedly during history. Berwick
>still play in the Scottish (not Scotch) league.
>
>under the Treaty of Union, after an announcement is made in parliament in
>London, several days must elapse before the announcement applies in Scotland.
>This was to allow time for a messenger to ride from London to Edinburgh and read
>the announcement in Parliament Square. During these few days in 1945 between
>England being declared not to be at war with Germany and the same happening for
>Scotland, Berwick was transferred from Scotland to England, and thus missed
>out on both declarations. The town of Berwick is, therefore, still at war
>with germany.
As of the mid sixties, berwick was at war with Russia. In the 19th century, Berwick
(due to its somewhat flexible nationality) tended to be referred to seperately from
Great Britain on various official documents and at the end of the Crimean war someone
forgot. If i remember right a Russian official visited Berwick in the sixties to sign
a peace treaty and the head of Berwick council said "at long last the Russian people
can sleep peacfully in their beds" or something like that, it was funny when i first
read it anyway
Andrew
Bruce Tober
> > >Then possibly you should ask yourself how they define 'poverty', since
> > >the above is a nonsensical statement. 'Poverty' thses days is
> > >defined as having an income that is less than half the national
> > >average.
> >
> > How else would you describe it? Perhaps you'd like to contrast their
> > lot with the folk of ,say, the fourteenth century. By that criteria,
> > even the poorest are living the life of Riley. I mean, houses with real
> > glass windows, inside khasis, electric lights, transistor radios - the
> > list is endless.
> >
>
> Although you use irony, you are correct. Poverty would imply a lack
> of those items which make life possible. This could not be said
No, poverty is defined as "the state of being poor; want of the
necessities of life." (_Oxford Concise Dictionary_).
> to be the case in the UK, where poverty seems too often defined as
> not being able to afford a second television.
Now who's talking irony? The poverty those of us who care to open our
eyes see, is the thousands (and increasing daily) of homeless, the
millions of unemployed, the single parents who live with their
children in one-room bedsits, the working poor who have to work two
and three jobs just to keep food on the table and a roof over head,
the elderly who are likely to freeze to death because they can't
afford the new taxed heating charges, etc.
tbt
Fidonet: 2:250/102
Bruce Tober
mar...@bri.hp.com "Martin Ackroyd" writes:
> The Jackal... (ble...@origin.ea.com) wrote:
> [blah blah blah]
> : pounds for a packet of cigarettes (more like 1.15) I don;t have to pay 400
> : quid a year in poll tax, I do have to pay for medical bills (which I'm not
> : very happy about but my medical insurance covers about 80% of the bills for a > : far superior service). I live in a place where the sun shines & it only
> snowed
> Barry, You might take a look at the fine print of your US medical insurance.
> Check if it covers you for TWO serious problems in succession. Does
> it cover you for mental problems? - (no personal implication, you understand).
Not to mention, if it lapses, will he be able to get a new policy,
without paying extortionate prices, if at all, if he has a member of
the family with asthma or other pre-existing condition. Will it cover
drugs over a certain small limit. and will it be there when he needs
it or will the insurance company president have absconded with the
funds and his secretary to some majical island paradise (I know this
sounds jocular, but it's been happening in increasing numbers over
the last few years).
tbt - an ex-pat american who'd rather be in britain than the states
any day.
Fidonet: 2:250/102
Jim Jackson
No, I think it was Russia who was still at War with Berwick
I seem to recall a Soviet official visiting Berwick in recent
times to declare peace.
JJ
Philip Hugh Hunt
> > > of those items which make life possible. This could not be said
> > > to be the case in the UK, where poverty seems too often defined as
> > > not being able to afford a second television.
> >
> Nah, poverty is not being able to afford satellite tv.
No, poverty is not being able to afford net access.
--
....Phil Hunt....philip@storcomp.demon.co.uk....
Philip Hugh Hunt
Stew...@tuareg.demon.co.uk "Stewart Parkinson" writes:
> > What if I was ill, and I needed an operation costing #1000000 to save my
> > life. If I didn't have the money, would I be poor?
> >
>
> Errr...no. You would go to your GP, and depending on the circumstances
> be referred to a hospital for treatment. What's your point ?
My point is that it is possible to have quite a lot of money, and still
not have enough possessions to prevent death. After all, we all have to
die sometime.
--
....Phil Hunt....philip@storcomp.demon.co.uk....
Philip Hugh Hunt
Stew...@tuareg.demon.co.uk "Stewart Parkinson" writes:
> How many people died of poverty related illness last year in the UK ?
About 20%, at a guess. Consider that people with lower incomes tend to
die earlier (even if the effect if still not that large).
--
....Phil Hunt....philip@storcomp.demon.co.uk....
John Farrer
>Check if it covers you for TWO serious problems in succession. Does
>it cover you for mental problems? - (no personal implication, you understand).
It is also likely to drop you like a hot brick if your illness lasts too long
AND if the insurance is provided by your job, you develop diabetes (a common
occurance) and try to change jobs, the insurance at the new job will probably
not accept you.
Add to that, you are indeed lucky not to be one of the 30 million US residents
without medical insurance or the additional 20 million or so who have
insurance that is in in danger of being cancelled.
John
Joseph Askew
: In article <784888...@tuareg.demon.co.uk>
: Stew...@tuareg.demon.co.uk "Stewart Parkinson" writes:
: > How many people died of poverty related illness last year in the UK ?
: About 20%, at a guess. Consider that people with lower incomes tend to
: die earlier (even if the effect if still not that large).
Poor people die early for lots of reasons few of them having a lot to
do with poverty. Eating crap is a good start. If they were poorer they
would actually eat *better* (in a medical sense) and so die later.
--
Percentage of American schoolchildren aged between 15 and 18 who know that
the Population of the United States is between 150 and 300 million - 32.
Equivalent Percentage for US Population in Sweden 42, Mexico 42, France 41
Joseph Askew
: In article <784800...@tuareg.demon.co.uk>
: Stew...@tuareg.demon.co.uk "Stewart Parkinson" writes:
: > Although you use irony, you are correct. Poverty would imply a lack
: > of those items which make life possible. This could not be said
: No, poverty is defined as "the state of being poor; want of the
: necessities of life." (_Oxford Concise Dictionary_).
Noone in England wants for the necessities of life therefore noone is poor.
Unless of course you claim that two TV's are necessary.
: > to be the case in the UK, where poverty seems too often defined as
: > not being able to afford a second television.
: Now who's talking irony? The poverty those of us who care to open our
: eyes see, is the thousands (and increasing daily) of homeless, the
Thousands? Care to provide a reliable cite for that? Notice that a lot
of homelessness is either by choice or is the result of essentially
untreatable problems.
: millions of unemployed,
Who get a damn good wage by the standards of most of the world or the
grandparents of these self same people. They are *not* poor. Bored yes.
: the single parents who live with their
: children in one-room bedsits,
How sad for them, doesn't make them poor though. Merely comparitively
uncomfortable.
: the working poor who have to work two
: and three jobs just to keep food on the table and a roof over head,
Load of old cobblers. Name six such working people, they could quit
all three and still keep food on the table and a roof over head.
: the elderly who are likely to freeze to death because they can't
: afford the new taxed heating charges, etc.
More garbage. Old people die in cold weather. Mostly because they
do not move around enough. Not because they can't afford heating.
Partly this is due to their medication but mostly to them being old.
Sad but not a result of poverty. You'll be bringing up those damn
dog food stories next.
Joseph
Martin Ackroyd
[snip snip]
Bunnies can and will go to France.
What was Mr Scott's favourite breakfast?
- Palethorpe's sausage
--
Martin A | "Rigorous argument from inapplicable assumptions
| produces the world's most durable nonsense"
mar...@ghoul.bri.hp.com |
Stewart Parkinson
Octob...@crecon.demon.co.uk "Bruce Tober" writes:
> In article <784800...@tuareg.demon.co.uk>
> Stew...@tuareg.demon.co.uk "Stewart Parkinson" writes:
>
> > > >Then possibly you should ask yourself how they define 'poverty', since
> > > >the above is a nonsensical statement. 'Poverty' thses days is
> > > >defined as having an income that is less than half the national
> > > >average.
> > >
> > > How else would you describe it? Perhaps you'd like to contrast their
> > > lot with the folk of ,say, the fourteenth century. By that criteria,
> > > even the poorest are living the life of Riley. I mean, houses with real
> > > glass windows, inside khasis, electric lights, transistor radios - the
> > > list is endless.
> > >
> >
> > Although you use irony, you are correct. Poverty would imply a lack
> > of those items which make life possible. This could not be said
>
> No, poverty is defined as "the state of being poor; want of the
> necessities of life." (_Oxford Concise Dictionary_).
>
What, then, are the 'necessities' of life ?
> > to be the case in the UK, where poverty seems too often defined as
> > not being able to afford a second television.
>
> Now who's talking irony? The poverty those of us who care to open our
> eyes see,
I wouldn't try this one on me, if I were you.
> is the thousands (and increasing daily) of homeless, the
> millions of unemployed, the single parents who live with their
> children in one-room bedsits,
Again, unpleasant, but hardly 'poor'.
> the working poor who have to work two
> and three jobs just to keep food on the table and a roof over head,
> the elderly who are likely to freeze to death because they can't
> afford the new taxed heating charges, etc.
>
This is largely emotive rubbish.
Roy Omond
Chris Cooke <c...@dcs.ed.ac.uk> writes:
> David Johnston writes:
>
> cendbj> I think this may be an urban legend. I heard it was Russia and the
> cendbj> Crimean War, and that it had all been sorted out anyway (not that
> cendbj> Moscow was particularly concerned).
>
> Yes. The Berwick-Russia war was officially ended a year or two ago I think.
I can't stand the suspense ... who won ??????
Giles Johnson
: Bruce Tober (Octob...@crecon.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: : In article <784800...@tuareg.demon.co.uk>
: : Stew...@tuareg.demon.co.uk "Stewart Parkinson" writes:
: : > Although you use irony, you are correct. Poverty would imply a lack
: : > of those items which make life possible. This could not be said
: : No, poverty is defined as "the state of being poor; want of the
: : necessities of life." (_Oxford Concise Dictionary_).
: Noone in England wants for the necessities of life therefore noone is poor.
: Unless of course you claim that two TV's are necessary.
<snip>
: More garbage. Old people die in cold weather. Mostly because they
: do not move around enough. Not because they can't afford heating.
: Partly this is due to their medication but mostly to them being old.
: Sad but not a result of poverty. You'll be bringing up those damn
: dog food stories next.
Whatever the cause of those old people being unable to move around, when
they live in a cold climate is it clear that for them heating is one of the
"necessities of life." Without it they will (and do) die. The same applies
to all those people who are unable to find a home that they can afford.
Hence these people are all, according to the oxford definition, poor
Giles
K Stephen
>Bruce Tober (Octob...@crecon.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>: In article <784800...@tuareg.demon.co.uk>
>: Stew...@tuareg.demon.co.uk "Stewart Parkinson" writes:
>: > Although you use irony, you are correct. Poverty would imply a lack
>: > of those items which make life possible. This could not be said
>: No, poverty is defined as "the state of being poor; want of the
>: necessities of life." (_Oxford Concise Dictionary_).
>Noone in England wants for the necessities of life therefore noone is poor.
>Unless of course you claim that two TV's are necessary.
Open your eyes! Go to Castlemilk, etc in Glasgow or Mossside etc
and you will see people wanting for the necessities.
Have you never seen people selling the Big Issue or worse begging?
>: > to be the case in the UK, where poverty seems too often defined as
>: > not being able to afford a second television.
>: Now who's talking irony? The poverty those of us who care to open our
>: eyes see, is the thousands (and increasing daily) of homeless, the
>Thousands? Care to provide a reliable cite for that?
See yesterday's Scotsman.
>Notice that a lot
>of homelessness is either by choice or is the result of essentially
>untreatable problems.
How do you know that? What do you mean by untreatable?
>: old people die because they can't afford
>: afford the new taxed heating charges, etc.
>More garbage. Old people die in cold weather. Mostly because they
>do not move around enough. Not because they can't afford heating.
>Partly this is due to their medication but mostly to them being old.
>Sad but not a result of poverty. You'll be bringing up those damn
>dog food stories next.
You agree that old people die in cold weather. It is
therefore necessary for those people to buy heat to survive. However
they cannot afford this so they die. Therefore they cannot afford the
necessities of life and are poor.
Further, thousands of old people are being turned out of hospitals and
care centres when they are obviously incapable of looking after
themselves. They are not 'ill' according to the doctors because
apparently the doctors cannot improve their position any further. It is
undeniable that these people need care but they cannot afford it and are
sent home to die in sqaulor over the following months as the seriousness
of their infirmaty takes over.
Please find out about the world you live in before you pronounce it to
be all rosy and lovely.
Karl Stephen
Andrew Rilstone
> >: No, poverty is defined as "the state of being poor; want of the
> >: necessities of life." (_Oxford Concise Dictionary_).
>
> >Noone in England wants for the necessities of life therefore noone is poor.
Absolute and relative poverty. Absolute poverty is starving to death
or dying of cold; relative poverty is being significantly worse off
than those around you. In Jane Austen's *Mansfield Park*, Fanny Price's
parents are regarded as being poor because they only have two servants.
It isn't true to say that there is no absolute poverty in England; it is true
to say that there is very little.
However, it seems to me to be reasonable to say that someone who can't afford
a daily newspaper, a television, or occassional, modest entertainment (a trip
to the cinema, a modest holiday, a drink in a pub) can be reasonably said to
be "poor."
--
Andrew Rilstone and...@aslan.demon.co.uk
*************************************************************************
"Ah! Don't say that you agree with me. When people
agree with me I always feel that I must be wrong."
Oscar Wilde.
*************************************************************************
M Campbell
|> Although you use irony, you are correct. Poverty would imply a lack
|> of those items which make life possible. This could not be said
|> to be the case in the UK, where poverty seems too often defined as
|> not being able to afford a second television.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha! You'll ken what you're talking about then. You
won't be from a comfy middle-class background and have a reasonably paid job
which gives you toys like the internet to play with. You'll be a poor
asthmatic single mother trying to bring up kids in a damp, collapsing
concrete box out in Muirhouse then.
Apologies if I'm wrong but I don't think so. Just because sometimes poverty
is poorly defined does *not* mean that it doesn't exist. I don't ken where
you live but I think a little research wouldn't go amiss.
BTW The former description above applies pretty well to me. However, I like
to think that this is my good fortune rather than the universal state of
things.
--
Murray. (a...@cplab.ph.ed.ac.uk)
**** Independent Republic of Carlops, Now! ****
Philip Hugh Hunt
s66...@cc.ntnu.edu.tw "Joseph Askew" writes:
> : Now who's talking irony? The poverty those of us who care to open our
> : eyes see, is the thousands (and increasing daily) of homeless, the
>
> Thousands? Care to provide a reliable cite for that?
I think you meant "citation" here.
> Notice that a lot
> of homelessness is either by choice
I see you belong to the school of thought which believes more people chose
to become homeless when Thatcher changed the benefit rules.
--
....Phil Hunt....philip@storcomp.demon.co.uk....
Philip Hugh Hunt
> : In article <784888...@tuareg.demon.co.uk>
> : Stew...@tuareg.demon.co.uk "Stewart Parkinson" writes:
> : > How many people died of poverty related illness last year in the UK ?
>
> : About 20%, at a guess. Consider that people with lower incomes tend to
> : die earlier (even if the effect if still not that large).
>
> Poor people die early for lots of reasons few of them having a lot to
> do with poverty.
There is a statistical correlation between dying early and being poor.
There are two possibilities: (1) that this is a coincidence, or (2) it is
not a coincidence.
Given the large number of people who die in Britain every year, the
probability of (1) is vanishingly small, so (2) must be the case, ie
dying early *does* have something to do with poverty.
> Eating crap is a good start. If they were poorer they
> would actually eat *better* (in a medical sense) and so die later.
You are saying that (1) poor people die earlier, and (2) if they were
even poorer they would die, not even earlier, but later.
I find this unbelievable.
--
....Phil Hunt....philip@storcomp.demon.co.uk....
"A National Lottery is a tax on stupidity."
Bill Bedford
ar...@techprt.co.uk (Andrew Halket) wrote:
>>First I've heard of this, but even if it is true, why is it when Scots mention
>>leaving the union the English all rush to tell us how badly off we'd be and
>>that they really do care for our welfare? Or is the reality that the loss of
>>substantial oil revenue, currently squandered on giving fat cats in the
>>South East, would make a severe dent in plans for more tax cuts for those fat
>>cats and enlarging the M25?
>
>oil revenue is somewhat less than 1% of GDP
>
That would make it about 10% of Scottish GDP?
Mmmmm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Bedford bi...@mousa.demon.co.uk +44 9505 327
Designer of Photo-Etches
People who at home with technology are people who have not forgotten how to play
Living on a island gives the world a different perspective
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Bartle
> >
> > > Therefore by your definition no-one is living in poverty
> > > (although some people might be dying in poverty).
> > >
> > You hadn't noticed?
> >
>
> How many people died of poverty related illness last year in the UK ?
>
- you mean the real insignificant stuff like Hypothermia..Of course that
is neither a matter of poverty or illness - or for heavens sake, not
humanitys disregard for its own kind - and certainly not the results of
decades of tory politics.
No no...!
Purely an expression of irresponsible individuals own recklessness and
inadequacies in providing for thier own _comfort_ in old age, - not having
invested the necessare 45% of thier total net incomes for a lifetime -
while often paying 68% of the same income for inadequately heated
rented accomodation - while they were still aber to march off every
morning and make themselves available for a further days exploitation.
It`s quite supprising that an otherwise rather intellectual _Upstart_
like K. Marx to suggest that - "..remuneration to workers within a
capitalist soceity will be the cost of regenerating thier own capability
to work!" without the qualifing and explicite addition of "- for that
period of the lifetime during which the owners of the means of production
have any reasonable expectation of finding an " .. additional value" to be
scammed of the failing energies of the carcase in question!"
//Disclaimer: Not of course that _I_ am really that sort of person;
just taking a puerely hypethetical standpoint in the discussion - like any
good speaker at a OxCam debating society might do; to stimulate the
inelectual potential of an otherwise trailing debate! .... _ or? //
Not now on Masirah Island
Now no longer working 12 hours every 24 in a nato HQ
- hardly able to beleive that a war pension could be less than 20 quid a
week -
never was employed by a pall mall lawyer - and the *gb at the same time!
and other things which could never be....
\
\ - could they!?-
- at lest not until 2028AD!
rb
* r.ba...@tbx.berlinet.in-berlin.de fax: +49.30.6863546 voice:..6860053 *
* - snu...@dobag.in-berlin.de Btx: 0306863546 0001 *
## CrossPoint v3.02 R ##
The Jackal...
>Wrong. If you had actually bothered to look at the U.K.'s finances
>instead of living in your ex-pat's fantasy world about how wonderful an
>independant Scotland would be, then you would know that England pays for
>most of the social perks available in Scotland *(such as hospitals,
>social security etc.). Without being part of the U.K. Scotland's income
>would fall drastically ( a fact recognized and publically admitted by
>the S.N.P.).
>It's very easy to comment on one country from another because you don't
>have to face the realities which are startlingly obvious over here -
>such as the vast number of scots who work in England or the english who
>work in Scotland, or the level of integration between these two parts of
>our country.
>Also, what's this "poll tax" thing, no-one in the U.K. pays it. Is it
>some sort of fine for running away from the problems of one's country by
>moving to another instead of trying to work to make things better?
Assumes Rab C Nesbit posture, (bandage, String vest & bottle of Irn Bru in
Left pocket)
STARTLING REALITIES ? I'll startling realities you ! I grew up in
a place where even the smartest people couldnt get a job after years of
university, where the only career people could look forward to was some menial
task, unless of course they wanted to move away from their families and
friends, So dont you be telling me that I live in some ex-pat's fantasy land
when I lived in that nightmare..
Let me tell you this boy... See thae bloody English, they take aw wur munny
away doon sooth, and whit dae we git ? Ahl Tell Ye !, Cheek ! Cheek fae the
Social wantin us tae fun a joab when abody kens there's nae jobs north of
Watford, Cheek fae the Government taking tax oot wur social munny just tae
turn roond anask fur extra tax Like the Poll tax or the Roof tax or whatever
their callin it this week, Cheek fae the Bloody hinglish people, sayin that
wur bleedin them dry when we're the ones lookin like vamp whithisname !
Goan... Onyerway !
*************************************************************
BARRY LEITCH
THE GLASWEGIAN TEXAN
MUSICIAN @ ORIGIN SYSTEMS
EX-OCEAN & EX-IMAGITEC
ble...@osipo01.origin.ea.com
ble...@origin.ea.com