On 06/01/12 17:58, Charles Ellson wrote:
Mercury was not providing the infrastructure for that service, merely
using an established provider to connect the calls to their much
smaller network, a bit like Sainsburys being obliged to allow a
competitor to set up order desks within its premises.

I believe that the original Mercury 131 service required Mercury to have
lines into BT exchanges. When I signed up in 1992 only some areas of
Edinburgh were covered. The later 132 service was much more like things
nowadays, and was available from any BT exchange.

Ian

On 06/01/12 18:18, Lüko Willms wrote:
But you always try to avoid addressing the issued under debate and try
instead staging a show trial.

Is that why you evaded discussion of Berlin railway workers' conditions
and instead accused me of being a Hitler apologist?

Ian

On 06/01/2012 18:33, Lüko Willms wrote:
Am 05.01.2012 18:56, schrieb Arthur Figgis:
if the owner is the state, the thing is state owned.

and if the horse is black, it is not white.

On average, zebras are grey.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On Jan 6, 9:50*pm, The Real Doctor wrote:

Good heavens, this takes me back to the heady days of student life in
the 1980s, and the lefties who shrieked "fascist" at anyone who
disagreed with them. Particularly other lefties, of course.

It was a lot more fun than actually engaging in politics. With
opposition like that, it's hard surprising the Tories stayed in power
for so long.

ian

On 06/01/12 22:19, ian batten wrote:
On Jan 6, 9:50 pm, The Real wrote:

Good heavens, this takes me back to the heady days of student life in
the 1980s, and the lefties who shrieked "fascist" at anyone who
disagreed with them. Particularly other lefties, of course.

It was a lot more fun than actually engaging in politics. With
opposition like that, it's hard surprising the Tories stayed in power
for so long.

Deep down I think the left prefers being in opposition. It's so much fun
than being in power, and you don't have to seek the approval of those
dreadful people in the proletariat who will insist on wanting nice cars,
nice housing, nice holidays and all the other things which should be
reserved for those committed activists who know how to appreciate them.

Ian

On 06/01/12 21:55, Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
Yes. East Germans were considered German nationals according to West
German law. They had full citizenship by birth, thus full entitlement
to all social benefits, the right to vote, and the right to settle
down. (Citizenship was another area of disagreement between East and
West Germany. Ask if you're interested, otherwhise I'll leave it at
that.)

Eastern Europeans of other nationalities who made it to West Germany
could plead asylum, and as they could credibly claim having escaped
from a dictatorship I should think they were all granted it. Eastern
Europeans who did not choose to plead asylum were subject to the usual
immigration laws. There were many Poles living in West Germany for
work, most of whom probably without pleading asylum.

Thank you very much. I really should know this, particularly as a large
chunk of my family studied or taught at the Free University in Berlin ...

Ian

On Jan 6, 7:41*pm, Lüko Willms wrote:
Am 05.01.2012 15:50, schrieb bob:

On 2 Jan., 13:04, Lüko *wrote:
Am 01.01.2012 23:27, schrieb Neil Williams:

If it's owned by the Government it's nationalised, whatever means that
ownership may take, IMO.

* * you have a strange concept of "nationalization"

It's the one that agrees with my dictionary (and wikipedia).

* *Throw the dictionary away. Did you write this Wikipedia article
yourself?

My dictionary is the Oxford English Dictionary. I suggest you look up
the way it is compiled. It is somewhat more rigorous than the opinion
of a non-native speaker on usenet.

* * Do you really believe that the composition of the shareholders makes
a qualitative difference for the commercial activity of a company?

Absolutely it does.

* *I'm sorry for you.

* There are reams and reams of laws governing the

relationships between parent companies and subsidiaries, and the stake
one company can hold in another before it is deemed to be a subsidiary

* *which does not mean that the owning company does exert any influence
on the activities of the management of the company.

If you follow this line of argument you would have to conclude that
Rupert and James Murdoch, who control News Corporation, do not control
the activities of News International (a separate UK company whose
shares happen to be owned by News Corporation) that until recently
published the News of the World. The events of the last few months
would strongly suggest that this line of argument is not a true
reflection of reality.

* * At which percentage of ownership by a state entity does a company
stop being "really a commercial operator"?

50% +1 share.

* *Didn't you say 30% before? Or was that somebody else? Those marks are
really very arbitrary, don't you think so? Too arbitrary to be a
scientific fact.

That was somebody else. Because many shareholders do not take an
active interest in the running of a company, the law recognises that
30% represents a large enough interest to exert a strong enough
interest in the company that once that point is reached an offer must
be made to buy the whole company. At 50%+1, it is impossible for any
other shareholder or group of shareholders to oppose the majority
owner.

* At that point the government shareholding is a

controlling interest, and the private shareholders combined can not
vote down any measure imposed by the controlling shareholder.

* *At Deutsche Bahn AG, the Federal Republic of Germany may not have
more than 3 seats out of 20 on the supervisory board. Can those three
really make a majority of 20?

As the owners, they have the right to nominate the membership of the
board as they see fit. That they chose only to exercise that right on
3 of the 20 seats is their prerogative, but if they chose to they
could nominate all 20.

* * Do you really believe this idiotic nonsense?

The courts and parliament do.

* * What about the Rothaus brewery, just to cite one little example?

Definitely.

Commerzbank?

Northern Rock? *RBS? *Yes to all of them.

* *And now Northern Rock does freely give credits for the lowest
interest rates, undercutting all other banks? Do you really believe this
bull****? Come down on earth!

The owners of Northern Rock (the UK government) believe that it is not
in the long term interest of the UK economy to run Northern Rock in
such a way, so they chose to run it on commercial lines instead. As
it is a nationalised company, the UK government is able to force
Northern Rock to run in any way the government choses. For the same
reason Rothaus does not undercut other brewers.

* *Life does not stick to your rigid ideas!

Amen to that.

Robin

On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 12:23:09 -0800 (PST), Mizter T
wrote:


On Jan 6, 6:08 pm, Charles Ellson wrote:

On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 10:09:38 +0000, The Real Doctor
[...]
Mind you, I think I was wrong, anyway, 'cos Scotrail is run by First, isn't it,

IIRC only on the basis they are the only current contractor/franchisee
for the services covered by that brand.

Which is a somewhat long winded way of saying 'yes' !

It depends what direction you are coming from. The Scottish Government
could also be said to be "running ScotRail" by way of having
franchised the services included in the brand. Had e.g. the sleepers
gone to someone else then there could have been two companies
"running" ScotRail.

On Jan 6, 10:58*pm, The Real Doctor wrote:

Deep down I think the left prefers being in opposition. It's so much fun
than being in power,

Not only that, but it allows you the luxury of adopting morally and
intellectually pure policies, safe in the knowledge that you'll never
have to either implement them or defend the consequences to the
electorate. Their pragmatism is why the Tories are the natural party
of stable government; their idealism is why Labour are the natural
party of futile opposition. Watching Labour utterly fail to make the
slightest impression in the Tory standing, in a manner which make
Michael Foot 1982 look like Clem Attlee 1945, would be amusing were it
not so tragic, and shows up the aberration of Tony Blair's
electability for the once-in-a-century wildcard that it was. Winning
elections, which meant they had to make the compromises of power, is
something Labour could never forgive Blair for, and as soon as they
had the opportunity they installed an election-losing political
incompetent to return normal service. Putting Brown in charge of the
Labour Party (disastrous electoral defeat, massive internal division,
a legacy of spite and back-biting that will last a generation) may
look insane to the outside observer, but for the typical Labour Party
member, it was perfect: no more compromise! No more selling out! The
arid purity of opposition!

ian

On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 22:15:28 +0000, Arthur Figgis
wrote:

On 06/01/2012 18:33, Lüko Willms wrote:
Am 05.01.2012 18:56, schrieb Arthur Figgis:
if the owner is the state, the thing is state owned.

and if the horse is black, it is not white.

On average, zebras are grey.

According to Wonkypaedia they are mostly black with the white bits
being "extras" (once you get their pyjamas off). Maybe we can arrange
to have one shaved ?