Neil Williams wrote:
No, I don't. To me, and I would think most people in the UK, a
nationalised organisation is one owned by the state. Simple as
that.
Its business model is irrelevant.


I don't think you can correctly describe organisations such as the
Royal Mail or the NHS that have always been in the public sector as
"nationalised".

The use of the term "nationalised" is very strongly suggestive of an
organisation formerly in the private sector that has been taken into
public ownership, or nationalised.

In message ,
at 11:31:17 on Mon, 2 Jan 2012, Bruce remarked:

I don't think you can correctly describe organisations such as the
Royal Mail or the NHS that have always been in the public sector as
"nationalised".

The use of the term "nationalised" is very strongly suggestive of an
organisation formerly in the private sector that has been taken into
public ownership, or nationalised.

Healthcare was in the private sector before the NHS was formed as a
vehicle to nationalise it.
--
Roland Perry

On 02 Jan 2012 00:34:44 GMT, Hans-Joachim Zierke
wrote:


Neil Williams schrieb:


with Grammer seats, as used in new Eurobahn units

Tombstones?

???

http://www.grammer.com/fileadmin/use...tenblatt_D.pdf

450mm is certainly not enough, but if the seats get shifted a little away
from the window, things start to get acceptable.

Apparently various airlines are experimenting with very thin back
seats, maybe a webbing type back which allow the seats to be closer
together yet still give enough room for comfort. I saw an article on
this in the Wall Street Journal and I THINK one of the airlines was
Lufthansa.

Clark Morris


Hans-Joachim

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message
, at
11:31:17 on Mon, 2 Jan 2012, Bruce remarked:

I don't think you can correctly describe organisations such as the
Royal Mail or the NHS that have always been in the public sector as
"nationalised".

The use of the term "nationalised" is very strongly suggestive of an
organisation formerly in the private sector that has been taken into
public ownership, or nationalised.

Healthcare was in the private sector before the NHS was formed as a
vehicle to nationalise it.

Not exactly. A lot of it was in the municipal and charitable sectors.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 02/01/2012 16:31, Bruce wrote:
Neil Williams wrote:
No, I don't. To me, and I would think most people in the UK, a
nationalised organisation is one owned by the state. Simple as
that.
Its business model is irrelevant.


I don't think you can correctly describe organisations such as the Royal
Mail or the NHS that have always been in the public sector as
"nationalised".

The use of the term "nationalised" is very strongly suggestive of an
organisation formerly in the private sector that has been taken into
public ownership, or nationalised.

Does the Royal Mail receive any subsidies or is it responsible for its
own financial well-being and charged with making a profit?

France's SNCF is state-owned, though I heard an official once say that
they have not received any since the early 1980s. Of course, I have no
way of knowing if that is true or not.

I also wonder what the French government would do if SNCF found itself
in a very tight spot. I know that the European Commission has cited
France in the past with basically providing state aid to companies,
under conditions that Brussels felt was a violation.

On Jan 2, 11:54*am, Lüko Willms wrote:
Am 02.01.2012 11:46, schrieb ian batten:

* *dreaming up some insults:

* He
thinks that Hungary 1956 and Czechoslovakia 1968 were justified
reactions to western imperialism. *That's why he isn't busy denying
Stalin killed anyone and if he did they they deserved it anyway.

* *You should be jailed for such lies.

So tell us about 1956 and 1968.

ian

On 02/01/12 11:52, Lüko Willms wrote:
The difference which you prefer to ignore (because of your abysmal
hatred of facts) is that the GDR has not been conquered by NATO tanks
crossing the border

Invasion by tank are almost always a Bad Thing. Ask the people of
Hungary and Czechoslovakia as was.

but by a popular uprising. And those people rising
up against their regime was to get _better_ conditions, not _worse._

They wanted West German conditions. They got 'em. Fewer creches, fewer
bullets in the back for attempting to emigrate.

Ian

On 02/01/12 11:54, Lüko Willms wrote:
You should be jailed for such lies.

Yes, well, that's a fairly traditional communist reaction to the
exercise of free speech.

Ian

On 02/01/12 11:57, Lüko Willms wrote:
No, I mean people like you are are nostalic of the past imperialist
glories of their masters,

Nope.

of Hitler,

Don't be silly. I'm not the one claiming that Hitler's aggression was
prompted by a desire to free the oppressed of the British empire.

of the British Empire (which is
still creating "commanders", I read in today's paper),

Indeed. Hideously embarassing, and I wish we'd stop doing it.

of "Algerie
Française", slavery, the genocide of the American Indians, the Spanish
Inquisition, and what have you.

Soviet colonialism in central and eastern Europe? Chinese colonialism in
Tibet? Argetinian colonialism in the Atlantic?

Ian

Am 02.01.2012 19:37, schrieb The Real Doctor:
On 02/01/12 11:54, Lüko Willms wrote:
You should be jailed for such lies.

Yes, well, that's a fairly traditional communist reaction to the
exercise of free speech.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fowuazq-140

Oliver Schnell