Slashdot Mirror

Perhaps he should have done his homework so that he might have more realistic expectations.

He might also be able to use simple civil service phrases like "Unfortunately, although the answer was indeed clear, simple, and straightforward, there is some difficulty in justifiably assigning to it the fourth of the epithets you applied to the statement, inasmuch as the precise correlation between the information you communicated and the facts, insofar as they can be determined and demonstrated, is such as to cause epistemological problems, of sufficient magnitude as to lay upon the logical and semantic resources of the English language a heavier burden than they can reasonably be expected to bear" in every day conversation.

Sir Humphrey: "You know what happens: nice young lady comes up to you. Obviously you want to create a good impression, you don't want to look a fool, do you? So she starts asking you some questions: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the number of young people without jobs?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a lack of discipline in our Comprehensive schools?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think young people welcome some authority and leadership in their lives?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think they respond to a challenge?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Would you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?"
Bernard Woolley: "Oh...well, I suppose I might be."
Sir Humphrey: "Yes or no?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Of course you would, Bernard. After all you told you can't say no to that. So they don't mention the first five questions and they publish the last one."
Bernard Woolley: "Is that really what they do?"
Sir Humphrey: "Well, not the reputable ones no, but there aren't many of those. So alternatively the young lady can get the opposite result."
Bernard Woolley: "How?"
Sir Humphrey: "Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the growth of armaments?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think it is wrong to force people to take up arms against their will?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "There you are, you see Bernard. The perfect balanced sample."

http://www.yes-minister.com/ypmseas1a.htm

Yes (Prime) Minister

Watch it. Understand it. Remember it.

Sig is from "Yes, Prime Minister", episode 1:

Sir Humphrey: "With Trident we could obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe."

Jim Hacker: "I don't want to obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe."

Sir Humphrey: "It's a deterrent."

Jim Hacker: "It's a bluff. I probably wouldn't use it."

Sir Humphrey: "Yes, but they don't know that you probably wouldn't."

Jim Hacker: "They probably do."

Sir Humphrey: "Yes, they probably know that you probably wouldn't. But they can't certainly know."

Jim Hacker: "They probably certainly know that I probably wouldn't."

Sir Humphrey: "Yes, but even though they probably certainly know that you probably wouldn't, they don't certainly know that, although you probably wouldn't, there is no probability that you certainly would."
http://www.yes-minister.com/ypmseas1a.htm

All on Netflix streaming, nowerdays.

Explained in the YPM episode "Power to the People" by Sir Arnold and Sir Humphrey. It follows the following scheme: "Something must be done. This is something, therefore we must do it.". But doing nothing is better than doing the wrong thing.

http://www.yes-minister.com/polterms.htm

The first of the quote listed at this page from British comedy 'Yes Minister' always made me laugh (from the 80s).

The EU is in some ways a trade agreement anyway.

Some might argue that it is the bureaucrats ultimate conspiracy to abolish democracy.

CC.

-FL

I started watching it on google videos, and it was pretty interesting; especially after I had read that link regarding Moore's use of 'editing' to vilify Charlton Heston. So with a new attitute towards Moore, I started watching.

And yes, for the first time, I can see the bullshit. I live in the UK, and I don't 'love' the NHS. Just like the railways, I certainly don't think we're getting what we're paying for. One example would be the new NHS computer system. They've already spent (I shit you not) £12.4 Billion on a computer system that still_does_not_work, and that's taxpayer's money. That's the hideous %17.5 V.A.T. we pay on... well, almost everything. Don't get me wrong, I like the NHS - and as a UK Citizen, I'm proud of it. But listening to Moore's hideously one-sided argument makes me uneasy: there are so many hospitals that you could go to, and criticise, so much talk of MRSA infections, jokes about hospitals that have 500 administrators but no patients (http://http://www.yes-minister.com/ymseas2a.htm/) which doubtlessly have truthful elements.

And then there's the anecdotal evidence. 'I have a friend who was shafted by the HMOs'. Absolutely no doubt they're souless corporations, and evil etc, but tacking together a few stories doesn't make a argument. A friend of a friend once went to get innoculated before going on holiday to Turkey. Well, something was wrong with the syringe, because he's now in a wheelchair, and has been for 5 years. He consulted a lawyer, who informed him that _no_one_sues_the_NHS. No recourse there.

Then he talks about France. Sure, France _may_ have fantastic public services, but at an economic cost: the French economy is in trouble. The regulations regarding the hiring and firing of employees mean that... well, you can't fire people without paying an absolute fortune. The 35 hour week isn't fantastic - it stifles productivity, because a lot of people actually -want- to work more than 35 hours a week.

But when the government tried to change these regulations, there were mass protests by students: which hardly seems much less self-serving than drug companies 'buying' the US Congress. Yes, the government should be afraid of the government - but if people are complaining because they are working too hard when (in the case of the French) they clearly are NOT, there has to be a time when they stop taking the people so seriously.

I'm not saying Moore is wrong, just that it would be advised to take this cum grano salis.

... always dispose of the difficult bit in the title. It does less harm there than [in the contents].

Radio 3 - great classical music and discussion about the history and styles and composers

What would you estimate is the listenership/popularity of each channel? When you mentioned Radio 3, I was reminded of an old "Yes Prime Minister" episode from 1988 entitled, "The Tangled Web." Sir Humphrey asks permission to go on BBC Radio 3 to participate in one of a series of interviews with public officials about the structure of government. Prime Minister Hacker expresses concern over this due to the potential for embarrassing gaffes, statements in contradiction of policy, etc. Hacker's private secretary, Bernard, assures him that it won't be a problem, because it will be on Radio 3, so therefore no one will be listening.

(cue laugh track)

But seriously, as some U.S. Slashdotters will point out, it's much easier to have 5 or 6 quality channels of radio programming in the greater London area, or even via several networked transmitter sites across England, than it is to cover an entire continent like would be necessary here in the States, especially if regional tastes and scattered listener population are taken into account. How does the BBC handle, for example, programming in rural England, or even Scotland and Wales? I've heard that some of the programming intended for England is pre-empted by specific Scottish and Welsh programming to appeal to listeners in those areas. Are they successful in doing so?

Our public broadcasting system (TV and Radio) is probably the closest to the BBC that we have here in the U.S. In fact, that's how I was able to watch the Yes Minister episode described above. Public radio is probably the last service available, as both commercial radio and cellular telephone service fade out as you wander into some of the more rural areas of the U.S., like northern Maine, or the panhandle of Nebraska.

As for the principal topic of this discussion, satellite radio, I've been an XM subscriber since 2003. I almost feel as if it was a service designed with a listener like me in mind. Deep Tracks reminds me of the "Seven Sides at Seven" on Sunday nights on DC 101. Some combination of Fred, Ethyl and Lucy compensates for the sad loss of WHFS. And it can all be heard in Northern Maine and the panhandle of Nebraska.

As for the food 'quip', how about four out of the top ten restaurants in the world being in Britain, compared to two in the USA.

The current government, you mean? The one that wants biometric National ID cards tied to passports?

I don't see how you can claim that the Blair government hasn't introduced anything as oppressive as the Patriot Act when the Civil Contingencies Act exists, along with the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act of 2001, which, unlike the original Patriot Act, does not contain sunset provisions (provisions which the Bush administration may convince Congress to overturn, unfortunately). And which, since the government has been returned, is unlikely to be changed or repealed, even if Tony Blair is tossed on his behind and replaced by Gordon Brown.

Heck, maybe you can give this a read, and see if you can find anything that the author asserts which isn't true.

I lived in the UK for a bit under a year, finishing out my military service. It was incredible to me to hear Brits aghast abotu the evils of the Patriot Act when they were under far more draconian laws, with cameras on every street corner, an Official Secrets Act (which exists to protect Officials, not secrets, as they said in Yes, Prime Minister), police taking DNA samples from anyone arrested and a Home Secretary who seemed to be trying very hard to make the Bush administration seem reasonable and protective of civil liberties.

Of course, if you point this out, you're purveying anti-British propaganda. Just like anyone who criticizes the Bush admin hates America.

The UK is just ahead of us in the US in the turn back to totalitarianism. We Yanks should look at the UK if we want to see what our future will look like.

And, for those who don't think the Brits love being screwed by their government, that government was returned this week. With a reduced majority because of Iraq (not civil liberties, Iraq) and anger among hardcore Labour supporters that Tony Blair isn't socialist enough.

Readers of this post who may be less familiar with Yes Minister the delevision series may find that this clip seems a little familiar.

... so much so that she actually wrote a sketch ...

The Thatcher Script

Parent post mangled the quote somewhat.
Here's the original quote (RealVideo) in all its glory.

For those who cannot play RealVideo (hey, I don't own that site!),
here is the transcript (scroll down to the bottom of the page).

Parent post mangled the quote somewhat.
Here's the original quote (RealVideo) in all its glory.

For those who cannot play RealVideo (hey, I don't own that site!),
here is the transcript (scroll down to the bottom of the page).

I would suggest for anyone who likes British Comedy and wants to see how some of how politics and backroom dealing works, look for 'Yes Minister' and 'Yes Prime Minister'.

The quote that I find most relevant here, And I'm going from memory is:

Prime Minister: I explicitly ordered the UN ambassidor to abstain from the vote!

Humphery: Yes but an order to the Foreign minster becomes a strongly worded word to the permanent secretary. Which becomes an advisory to the UN under secretary. Which becomes a suggestion to the Ambassador. Who will vote for what's best for him.

I would not be surprised if this thing happened in the countries involved. Yes Minister while being a satire and funny. Is still a satire and reflects on real life.

Ah, thank you. You put me in mind to go and look up this:

Bernard Woolley: "Now, may I just have your approval for this Local Government Allowances Amendment Number 2 for this year's regulations."
Jim Hacker: "What is it?"
Bernard Woolley: "It is a Statutory Instrument to be laid before the House. As Minister responsible for local government we need you to authorize that the revised Paragraph 5 of Number 2 Regulations 1971 shall come into operation on March the 18th next, revoking Regulation 7 of the Local Government Allowances Amendment Regulations 1954(b)."
Jim Hacker: "What the hell does all that mean?"
Bernard Woolley: "It is all right, there is an explanatory note, Minister. These Regulations are to make provisions for prescribing the amount of attendance and financial loss allowances payable to the members of local authorities. Explanatory note: Regulation 3 of the Local Government Allowances Amendment Regulation 1971 ("the 1971 regulations") substituted a new regulation for Regulation 3 of the 1954 Regulations. Regulation 3 of the Local Government Allowances Amendment Regulation 1972 ("the 1972 regulations") further made amends Regulation 3 of the 1954 Regulations by increasing the maximum rates of attendance and financial loss allowances. Regulation 7 of the 1972 Regulations revoked both regulation 3 and 5 of the 1971 Regulations, Regulation 5 being a regulation revoking earlier spent regulations with the effect from 1st April next. These regulations preserve Regulations 2 and 5 of the 1971 Regulations by revoking Regulation 7 of the 1972 Regulations.
Jim Hacker: "And that's an explanatory note???"

From Yes, Minister (of course).

Jim Hacker: "Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers:
- The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country;
- The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country;
- The Times is read by people who actually do run the country;
- The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country;
- The Financial Times is read by people who own the country;
- The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country;
- And the Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is."
Sir Humphrey: "Prime Minister, what about the people who read the Sun?"
Bernard Woolley: "Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits."

The British TV sitcom Yes, Minister offered a brilliant precis of push-polling technique:

Sir Humphrey: "You know what happens: nice young lady comes up to you. Obviously you want to create a good impression, you don't want to look a fool, do you? So she starts asking you some questions: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the number of young people without jobs?"

Bernard Woolley: "Yes"

Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?"

Bernard: "Yes"

Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a lack of discipline in our Comprehensive schools?"

Bernard: "Yes"

Sir Humphrey: "Do you think young people welcome some authority and leadership in their lives?"

Bernard: "Yes"

Sir Humphrey: "Do you think they respond to a challenge?"

Bernard: "Yes"

Sir Humphrey: "Would you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?"

Bernard: "Oh...well, I suppose I might be."

Sir Humphrey: "Yes or no?"

Bernard: "Yes"

Sir Humphrey: "Of course you would, Bernard. After all you told, you can't say no to that. So they don't mention the first five questions and they publish the last one."

Bernard: "Is that really what they do?"

Sir Humphrey: "Well, not the reputable ones, no, but there aren't many of those. So alternatively the young lady can get the opposite result."

Bernard: "How?"

Sir Humphrey: "Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?"

Bernard: "Yes"

Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the growth of armaments?"

Bernard: "Yes"

Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?"

Bernard: "Yes"

Sir Humphrey: "Do you think it is wrong to force people to take up arms against their will?"

Bernard: "Yes"

Sir Humphrey: "Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service?"

Bernard: "Yes"

Sir Humphrey: "There you are. You see, Bernard? The perfect balanced sample."

That's a pretty good description of the state of UK politics. A little off-topic, but to fill in a bit extra for our American cousins: Labour used to be the far left, ie _very_ socialist. Fiveeight is right in that the Conservatives were the reason Labour got in '97, but I should add that it was also because Labour refused to commit to anything; how can you criticise the policies of a party that doesn't have any?

It had a 'progressive' leader Tony Blair. Once safely in power, Blair kicked out the socialist old-guard that helped him into power and pulled in mostly people the same as himself. He's slightly right of centre. Over the years he's become more Conservative (capital C) than the Conservatives. This put the Conservatives in a quandry, and split the party. They've spend more time fighting each other than fighting Labour, with half of them wanting to push further right to try and differentiate themselves from Labour, and the other half wanting to push the other way and seem more caring.

The important thing is that we have a strong civil service which, whilst in theory under the control of the government ministers, pretty much runs the country autonomously. They are not corrupt and fairly resistant to commercial lobbying. They also listen to the people (at least the DTI certainly does) and are the reason we are unlikely to see anything like software patents or the DMCA here. Also the basis for one of the funniest TV series. :-)

Phillip.