This is a biography of Samuel Insull, written by John Wasik in 2006. Wasik is "one of America's most prominent business and finance journalists."

Don't read it. It is one of the worst written and edited books I have seen in a long time. Typos abound (he solidered on and Solider's Field), words are omitted or left in, and in general I found my reading flow interrupted on almost every page. What, pray tell, is an advertorial ? I think I figured it out from the context, but why make me do that? Then there's "[Insull's bank] would lend mortgages..."!

Worse is that it is full of fluff - why so much discussion of the life of Mary Garden? Sure, their paths crossed, but not in any important way. Frank Lloyd Wright was a very prominent and important figure in those days, but he and Insull had essentially nothing to do with each other. But we are told that Wright abandoned his family for a client's wife.

But the last straw is that the author either doesn't explain, or incorrectly describes, very important technical matters. He mentions, once, "off-peak", without explaining what load management is, and its critical importance to the electricity industry. Even in describing the financial strategems and structures used (and innovated) by Insull, he paints with either a very broad brush, or one with far too little paint on it. Give me less about Mary Garden's affairs, and at least one paragraph on why the open-ended mortgage was such an innovation and why it was critical to Insull's success.

I read the reviews of the book on johnwasik.com. While I understand that he almost certainly only quotes favorable ones, I really have to wonder how many of the reviewers actually read the book.

Forrest MacDonald's 1962 biography, Insull , is longer, but worth the effort.

quote:

What, pray tell, is an advertorial ?

Maybe it's not common in the USA but it's common enough in the UK and has been for years. Here it means an advertisement written in such a way as to appear to be written by the editorial staff of the journal. The idea is that you might fool the readers into believing that the words are the journal's not the advertisers, and are thus more likely to be true.

I don't believe I need to point out the several flaws in this stratagem.

That's what I figured it meant, though I had never heard the word before. They aren't really very common here, though. Mostly folks take out a full page ad emblazoning their brand, or have a dozen or so fellow-travelers underwrite the cost and their names.

Why do we need such a word? What's wrong with calling them plain old advertisements, especially when the content is described?

quote:

Why do we need such a word? What's wrong with calling them plain old advertisements, especially when the content is described?

Because they differ in several ways from normal advertisements.

Advertorials seem, at first glance, to be features written by the editorial team, although they usually have a discreet title that says something like "advertiser's announcement"). Advertorials will use the same kinds of font, layout and style as do the journal's features and will usually occupy a full page, or pages.

Advertisements will be distinctive - indeed the advertisers will usually use various devices to ensure that they "leap out of the page" - and will usually occupy only a part of a page.

US journals like "Time" use advertorials although I don't know what they call them. Generally speaking the UK media carries less advertising than the US media, although whether this has any bearing on the styles used I'm not sure.

Then you and I are ascribing different meanings to the word.

I have never seen the critter you describe in a US newspaper. Editorials appear on the editorial page and are only rarely, if ever, full page. They usually express the opinion of the editors on a news topic of broad interest. A newspaper's endorsement of a political aspirant is an example.

Opinion pieces not necessarily reflecting the opinion of the newspaper's editors may also appear on the editorial page, or, more commonly, on the page opposite - hence the term op-ed piece .

One does see advertisements for products or services that lamely masquerade as news items. They are rarely full page, however, and part of their camouflage is that they appear alongside legitimate news stories. Often, they tout break-throughs in medicine, technology, or a new product. Usually they are scams. But they don't appear to be opinions. On the contrary, they often purport to state newly and clearly established FACT.

What the author was describing is, I think, what I would call an advocacy ad. These are fairly common, and are often full-page. They advocate the position on some current topic or the benefits of some product or service of the advertiser (or group of advertisers).

An open letter to the community lobbying for or against a governmental action is an example. Another is a general advocacy of a company's practices or products, or even of a broad range of products by an industry (The American Beef Council, for example).

They do not attempt to deceive the reader as to their origin, either in placement or typography.

The advertisement described in the book, as best as I can tell, was not what you describe as an advertorial.

In any case, why does this author use the word? The book was not written for the UK reading public.

But perhaps I read the wrong publications, and advertorials, and the word, are common in the U.S.

Which reminds me of another difficulty I had with the book. In more than one place, he ends a sentence with an abbreviation, like U.S. Because of the use of the "." as an abbreviator, its use as a full stop is not obvious. This is especially the case when the following sentence begins with a proper noun.

Would it have been so hard to spell out United States?

It may be a difference in word usage. "Time" magazine, July 21 issue, has what I would call an advertorial, a four-page item, entitled "Wings of Desire", which is an advertisement for the Farnborough Air Show. This advertorial actually contains within itself a 2-page advertisement for the A380 Airbus. Time entitles it a "special advertising section" and as it is aimed at potential visitors to Farnborough (in the UK) it might not appear in the US edition.

But most editions of Time include similar items.

For once, I'm in agreement with Richard.
It is quite common, here at least, to see things masquerading as articles and given a style similar to the host publication which turn out to be advertisements. I don't read enough US publications to be able to comment on whether the same happens over there.
Generally the only distinction between such an advertising feature and a genuine article will be the words "advertising feature" which legally have to appear somewhere though the typeface and placement for that can make it quite hard to spot.

Actually this, intentionally misleading advertising, is one of my pet hates. Another form, often seen on leaflets shoved through letter box, is where commercial organisations try to trick people into believing they are charities. The worst offender (in my region at least) is something calling itself "Angel of Goodness" and asking you to donate unwanted clothing. This isn't a charity, it's a business. The number printed on the leaflet is the company registration number, not a charity registration number. We had another just yesterday and everything about it looks like it came from a charity. I only know that it doesn't because I've been suspicious in the past and researched it. It isn't a scam. It's a legitimate business - albeit of a morally dubious nature. But it isn't what it pretends to be.

quote:

Another form, often seen on leaflets shoved through letter box

These days I more and more frequently make use of a little-known service provided by Royal Mail - the "refused item" service.

Just mark the item "refused" and put it back into the letter-box and it will be returned to the sender at no expense to you. Sometimes the offending organisations even get the message and stop sending their nonsense.

BobHale:

As I said, what you describe is fairly common here, too. But they do not pretend to be editorials, rather, they attempt to appear to be news items - or as you say, articles. Some even have a phony byline.

At least in usage here, articles, or news items, even though passed by an editor, are not editorials. Editorials are opinion pieces, representing the position of the editorial board. Even if written primarily by one of the editors, they are approved by the board, and are - at least in the papers I read - never signed.

Perhaps they should be called newsments? The full page ads I described would more properly be called advertorials, but not because they attempt to mimic editorials, in the newspaper sense, but because they resemble editorials in that they represent an opinion. But advocacy ad is a better description, surely better understood, and shorter.

I'm pretty sure that most junk mail here is never returned to the sender, by virtue of the class of service.

An anarchist friend of mine takes the trouble to open his, take out the pre-paid return envelope, stuff it with the original content and as much newsprint as it will hold, and mail it back.

quote:

It is quite common, here at least, to see things masquerading as articles . . . which turn out to be advertisements. I don't read enough US publications to be able to comment on whether the same happens over there.

Much the same applies here. My big beef with the them is, since they are advertisements and often have that word along an edge in small type, they are allowed "puffery" (deceit) in what they say and show. As a result, travel supplements often use Photoshopped images with undesirable features (poles, autos, dead vegetation) expunged to impress the viewer with the "natural beauty" of their artificed environment.

Businesses masquerading as charities go one step further here. The Salvation Army places clothing donation boxes ourside its stores. This collectuion system and the sale of their used goods was so successful that some clothing businesses now place their own donation boxes on private property. The boxes have information printed on the outside which can mislead the unwary into thinking they are giving to help the poor. Instead the clothing sales money goes directly to the business owner.

Almost every day I get offers from national banks for credit cards which invariably charge extortionate interest rates. If I throw the paperwork away, it fills the local landfill, which raises my taxes. If I mark their letter "refused," it doesn't cost the company anything when it gets the letter back. But they often include a pre-paid envelope to return the filled-out application. So I cut up their leaflets and application, stuff the debris in the envelope, and mail it back prepaid to them.

1) In my experience, newsments always have the word "advertisement" included, usually at the top. Whether this is to prevent charges of false advertising, or a newspaper policy, I don't know.

2) Your beef with advertisements shouldn't be confined to just newsments, I don't think. Even advocacy ads usually only present one side of the story. Traditional advertising has always trod a fine line between persuasion and fraud.

3) You should look more closely at the credit card fliers. I know several people who have essentially created large interest-free loans by accepting such offers, with their 0% rates for transferred balances. The teaser rate is for only a few months, of course, but during those months dozens of new ones have been received.

4) I wouldn't have used the word "extortionate". The rates may be high, or even seemingly usurious, but there's no extortion involved.

4) I'll ask my postman the next time I see him what he does with "refused" 4th class mail. I very much doubt that it is returned to sender.

1. I think it is up to the publisher. Magazines and newspapers have a permanency that makes being sued more likely for them than for TV. Have you seen the network entertainment-news reporting shows detailing the hullaballoo about "Batman?" Many of the filmed segments pushing the film are not generated by the networks but are provided by the film companies themselves, without attribution. Then they're shown by the networks as if it was actual network reporting, instead of a business deal.

2. Have you ever seen any advocacy group end an argument with "But then again, we could be wrong."

3. This all assumes you want to buy stuff on credit.

4. Perhaps "onerous" would be the better term. Usury is a laughable term since the government constantly raises it higher to keep credit card companies from being prosecuted for criminal activities. I seem to recall when usury was an 8% interest rate. Think you can find that rate anywhere today?

5. (second four) Postal regulations are always changing so I can't be certain what happens to "refused" mail now. I know, when I was company mail clerk in the Army, it went back to the sender. At least that's what General Pershing told me.

This may have been changed thanks to the old trick of mailing a letter to yourself without postage, putting the actual recipient's name as the sender, then marking it "return to sender," getting free delivery. I would never do that.

quote:

This all assumes you want to buy stuff on credit.

Not really. Charge up a bunch of stuff on your credit card, and as soon as possible, transfer the balance to a 0% new card. Repeat after 3 months or so.

Yes, you are buying on credit, but it is free credit. The money in your pocket that you had, but chose not to use, can be invested.

quote:

I'm pretty sure that most junk mail here is never returned to the sender, by virtue of the class of service.

I am pretty sure that Royal Mail returns all undeliverable items, whether they be refused or undeliverable for other reasons. The only items that go to the Dead Letter Office are those that can't be returned because the senders have not shown their address.

I don't know how long undeliverable items stay in the DLO and I assume that eventually they will be disposed of - but there are statutory requirements about mail. After all, it is the property of the sender until it is delivered to its intended recipient and nobody, not even Royal Mail, is allowed to interfere with it.

quote:

"Neither snow, nor rain, nor heat, nor gloom of night shall stay
these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds."

I see the this article is silent on the topic of Rowland Hill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rowland_Hill_(postal_reformer)

To this day British stamps (uniquely in the world so far as I know)) do not show their country of origin since the postage stamp was a British invention.

It wasn't easy to find, but this USPS web page appears to say that refused junk mail is trashed, unless the sender has requested return service.

With very few exceptions, all undeliverable Royal Mail items are returned to sender, providing the address is available. If the address is not shown on the outside of the packaging, Royal Mail will open the item and, if the address is then found, will then return it.

Refused mail is treated in the same way as mail undeliverable for any other reason. http://www.royalmail.com/portal/rm/print?catId=400126&mediaId=2600041

As you can see from their web page, postal regulations are almost unintelligible in places. However, I agree that junk mail is usually trashed, unless "specifically requested by publisher" that it be returned. I was surprised to see that undeliverable first class mail is still sent back to sender. The scam I mentioned will still work.

I know the USPS goes to great lengths to deliver dead letters or "misplaced" mail. Several years ago I played in postal chess tournaments. Each player sent a post card with his next move to his opponent, and depending on distance, the moves could take up to two weeks to arrive. If, after an appropriate time passed, no move came, you would send a "repeat" to remind the other player. On one occasion I sent a repeat, the other player responded claiming he'd sent his move, but he repeated it so we could continue. The game finished about a year later and a year after that, almost to the day, the post office delivered a thoroughly mangled, bedraggled and dirty card, with his original move, in a plastic body bag.

Richard: I'm not saying that you are wrong, but the page you cite doesn't specifically say that it is true for all classes of mail. Our tariffs are sophisticated enough to allow the shipper the option. Perhaps direct mail isn't as prevalent in the UK.

In any case, I doubt that many people go to the trouble of refusing mail. Those who are worked up about it probably mail back the return envelope, which surely is delivered at a cost to the original sender.

Proofreader: I doubt that it will. I think that it will be sent back with Postage Due, though it has been many years since I saw a Postage Due stamp.

Speaking of postal matters and words, I recently learned that the old USPS Book Rate has been renamed Media Rate, and can be used to send digital media, such as floppies and CDs. I didn't ask about flash drives.

quote:

Richard: I'm not saying that you are wrong, but the page you cite doesn't specifically say that it is true for all classes of mail. Our tariffs are sophisticated enough to allow the shipper the option. Perhaps direct mail isn't as prevalent in the UK.

That's the user-friendly page. You can go to the main page of regulations to find the full rules and exclusions. But essentially, everything properly prepaid will be returned to sender if it can't be delivered, providing the return address is shown on the package and providing the sender hasn't said that undelivered mail should not be returned.

If the address is not shown then the package is opened. If it is simply advertising material then it will be disposed of.

And direct mail is, I can assure you, very common over here although I don't think we have the plethora of tariffs that you do. We did have at one time but most of the special rates have gone and we now for letters we only have first or second class, large or small.

The scam mentioned will not work here since items sent without sufficient postage will not be delivered. What you get instead is a card saying that an item is waiting for you with underpaid postage and that you will receive it once you pay the postage due and a handling fee, presently a pound ($2). If you don't pay then the letter is returned to the sender.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
What you get instead is a card saying that an item is waiting for you with underpaid postage and that you will receive it once you pay the postage due and a handling fee, presently a pound ($2). If you don't pay then the letter is returned to the sender.

This also applies to letters that they have been "unable" to deliver which gives the post office the chance to work the scam of intentionally not delivering stuff and forcing people to pay the handling charge (which was a deal more than £1 on the several recent occasions that they have worked it on me.)
Before you suggest complaining, I have, in person and in writing, to everyone I could think of. The result has been that my service has got even worse. Nobody likes a troublemaker.

In fact, now that I think about it, I don't understand that figure of £1. A few years ago my cousin sent 99p calender to my Dad at Christmas and was a couple of pence under on the postage (this was before the changes to incorporate size and shape as well as weight). We were charged a £3.50 handling charge for a 99p calendar.

All of this theorizing is fascinating, but in order to know how the Post Office will behave in the real world you have to do the experiment: Postal Experiments, from the Annals of Improbable Research.

The USPS is very good about delivery but they are overwhelmingly bureaucratic when it comes to mail boxes. When I moved into my house many years ago, the box attached by the front door was rusted metal, big enough to hold letters, but not big enough to keep magazines or newspapers dry in bad weather.

I made what I thought was a great enclosure out of wood with a sliding door, large enough to hold a small dog. Well, not quite but you get the idea. Much to my chagrin, I was refused service because it "wasn't regulation." I had to buy a new metal one, similar to the old one with similar storage problems, before they resumed delivery.

I've had letters minus the stamp returned for postage. They stamp "Postage Due" on it but there is no charge.

I think the most returned letters are "certified mail," which usually contain a complaint or bad news of some kind.

quote:

In fact, now that I think about it, I don't understand that figure of £1.

I confess I didn't check with Royal Mail, but the last two underpaid letters I received cost me the undercharge plus a pound, and I assumed that was the standard fee. I know, I know, I shouldn't assume...

quote:

All of this theorizing is fascinating, but in order to know how the Post Office will behave in the real world you have to do the experiment: Postal Experiments, from the Annals of Improbable Research.

Considering that the usual delivery time in this experiment, for quite ordinary items, seemed to be between 4 and 6 days, I find the initial paragraph, "...Having long been genuine admirers of the United States Postal Service (USPS), which gives amazingly reliable service especially compared with many other countries,..." somewhat strange. Of course, we don't know how far this postal journey was - it could have been less than a mile or maybe 2,500 miles and still been in the continental USA - but even so, I reckon that 6 days is pretty slow " compared with most other countries" if those happen to be European countries.

quote:

The USPS is very good about delivery but they are overwhelmingly bureaucratic when it comes to mail boxes.

One of the things I found really strange when I was a lad reading "Peanuts" cartoons, was this depiction of these strange tubular devices with little flags that seemed to be stationed at the ends of everyone's drives. It wasn't until I first visited small town USA that I realised that they did exist and weren't just a figment of Charles Schultz's imagination!

I have never, to this day, seen one in the UK.

quote:

Considering that the usual delivery time in this experiment, for quite ordinary items, seemed to be between 4 and 6 days, I find the initial paragraph, "...Having long been genuine admirers of the United States Postal Service (USPS), which gives amazingly reliable service especially compared with many other countries,..." somewhat strange

Perhaps because you are confusing "reliable" with "fast".
Delivery times vary with distance -- my Netflix DVDs arrive in one day from another California city; letters to Chicago take two to three days, letters to NY 4-6. It's a big country.

quote:

Perhaps because you are confusing "reliable" with "fast".

I believe that reliability and speed are associated. The Royal Mail has, as part of its charter, a delivery time (first class letters will arrive the day after posting) and part of their reliability is how many first class letters do arrive within that period. I've not checked their site but the last time I heard the figure was around 98%. I call that reliable.

Of course it will take longer if distances are greater, but I reckon that 6 days is poor for a journey of around 2500 miles. Remember, the largest amount of time is incurred in the handling, not the transport. It only takes about 7 hours to fly from Los Angeles to New York (about the same time as it takes for a train to get from London to Aberdeen). I would be very surprised if even a second-class letter were to take as long as 6 days to get from Partridge Green to Aberdeen and I would expect a first-class item to get there the following day. Indeed, if I were prepared to pay a small extra charge for special delivery, Royal Mail would guarantee next-day delivery.

I accept that the researchers here were trying to post extreme items, but I don't think that 64% delivery achievement is all that good either, even allowing for the strangeness of some of the items being sent. I would be very surprised if I posted a wrapped brick using Royal Mail and received only a parcel of brick crumbs!

quote:

It only takes about 7 hours to fly from Los Angeles to New York (about the same time as it takes for a train to get from London to Aberdeen).

In the U.S., as in the U.K., first class letters generally travel by ground, not by air. The distance from London to Aberdeen is the same as the distance from San Francisco to Los Angeles (half the length of California) and also takes a day, as I said. A letter from Eureka, CA to Los Angeles, CA travels the same distance as a letter from London to Berlin; a letter from SF to Chicago travels the same distance as a letter from London to Moscow; a letter from SF to NY travels another thousand miles, the same as a letter from London to Cairo; a letter from Key West, Florida to Nome, Alaska travels the same distance as a letter from London to Nairobi. You're comparing apples and oranges, or perhaps more accurately a rather large pumpkin with a smallish lime.

Nevertheless, your point is well-taken: the Royal Mail is the finest postal service that has ever existed or ever will exist. God Save the Queen.

quote:

I would be very surprised if I posted a wrapped brick using Royal Mail and received only a parcel of brick crumbs!

Experiments are made to be replicated. We anxiously await your results.

quote:

In the U.S., as in the U.K., first class letters generally travel by ground, not by air.

If that is true then I am staggered at the inefficiency of USPS, although I really find it hard to believe that USPS are that far behind the various European postal authorities. Within Europe the post travels by whichever means affords the most rapid delivery. Indeed, all mail within Europe - a land mass roughly the same size as the contiguous States of the USA - will travel by air (at no extra cost) if that gives a quicker delivery.

It is a very common thing for Americans to speak about the "huge" size of their county and use that as a reason for all sorts of things, both good and less good. Most seem to forget (or maybe do not even know) that the USA, while certainly being a large country, is far from being the world's largest. Sudan, just one country in Africa, would occupy roughly that same area as the whole of the eastern USA from Boston to Chicago and as far south as Miami.

And none of this alters my main point; it's not the travel time over the main distance that is the real problem; it is getting the mail sorted and taken to the airport or rail station, and repeating the process at the city or destination, that soaks up the time. It doesn't take much more than 24 hours to travel between any two airports anywhere in the world and any properly set-up postal service should be able to ensure that post between any two reasonably civilised points should be delivered within 72 hours. Six days or more between two points in one advanced country is just not good enough.

I could try the brick test but it's probably unnecessary. I frequently post parcels of exam papers around the country (paper being another dense material) and have never had any parcel opened or even delayed. But if you would like me to do it I will; if the brick arrives as a parcel of dust after 14 days I will pay, if it arrives intact after less than 72 hours (as I know full well it will) then you can pay me back double the postage. I would be happy to post one to you if you'll let me have your snailmail address; providing USPS security and/or the various enforcement agencies don't get their sticky hands on it you'll get it within 5 days.

The Royal mail might or might not not be "...the finest postal service that has ever existed or ever will exist. God Save the Queen..." but if what you say is correct it is very much better than the USA's. Whether or not it is more expensive I do not know. Here an internal first class letter, which is 98% certain to arrive at its destination within 24 hours, costs 32 pence (64 cents). A second class letter, which will usually arrive within 48 hours, costs 23 pence (46 cents).

quote:

the USA, while certainly being a large country, is far from being the world's largest.

Never said it was. It is, however, roughly the size of Canada and China. And twice the size of the EU. And four times the size of the largest African country, the Sudan. And 40 times larger than the United Kingdom. You could put the entire UK in California, and you would still have room for Switzerland, Holland, Denmark, Belgium, Slovenia and Luxembourg. Sorry, but the tiny Royal Mail isn't even playing in the same league as the USPS.

If the US had a flat rate, guaranteed delivery system like small European countries the cost of a local letter would be ridiculously high. If you want a package delivered anywhere in the US in 48 hours you send it Priority mail, which costs a couple of dollars.

quote:

But if you would like me to do it I will; if the brick arrives as a parcel of dust after 14 days I will pay, if it arrives intact after less than 72 hours (as I know full well it will) then you can pay me back double the postage.

So if I win, I get nothing, but if you win, I pay twice the postage?
Nice try.
How about this: you send the brick to a neutral 3rd party in a distant city (I suppose Aberdeen is the best you can do, but you should really send it to Rome, or Berlin, or Moscow to make things fair) and if it arrives within 48 hours I'll pay the postage, otherwise you do. Remember, you have to duplicate the experiment: the brick must not be in any kind of package, just a brick with postage and the address attached.
In fact, if you are up to replicating all the postal experiments, I'll pay all the postage, as long I get to be first author on the paper.

quote:

Remember, you have to duplicate the experiment: the brick must not be in any kind of package, just a brick with postage and the address attached.

The brick that ended up as a bag of brick dust was wrapped and properly prepaid.

Flat rate postage applies from the UK to all of Europe. A small letter from the UK to anywhere in Europe (not just the EU) costs 44 pence (88 cents) and will be sent by air at no extra cost if that will result in quicker delivery.

The size of the country is a complete red herring; as I said previously, most of the time is taken by the handling, not the journey. If that were not the case, a letter from the UK to New Zealand would take months, instead of the 3 days that I would expect (although maybe it does from the USA). The time taken for mail to be delivered is not in direct ratio to its distance; a letter from my house to the house next door will take a day; a letter from my house to Aberdeen will also take a day.

To suggest that "...the tiny Royal Mail isn't even playing in the same league as the USPS... is nonsensical. The Royal Mail handles items from and to destinations all over the world and does it very well. Far better, in my personal experience, than does the US mail system. Of course, it's impossible to make exact comparisons since letters sent from or to countries outside of the UK are then subject to the idiosyncrasies of the other country and it's not always possible to tell where any delay occurred. I sent a very large parcel by surface mail from Canada last May; it took two months to get to England - and two days to get from the port of arrival to my house. But I could tell that only because the customs clearance note showed the arrival date into the UK.

But I am wasting my time. As almost everyone in the world* knows, everything in the USA is bigger, better and more efficient than anywhere else - so to suggest that the USPS might not be as good as Royal Mail is an impossibility - since if it's American it must be best.

*Of course, when I write "The World" I mean the world as in "The World Series".

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
As almost everyone in the world* knows, everything in the USA is bigger, better and more efficient than anywhere else - so to suggest that the USPS might not be as good as Royal Mail is an impossibility - since if it's American it must be best.

Without meaning to be at all contentious (he lied) I am sensing a pot-kettle-black scenario here.

The Royal Mail is definitely not in the same league as the USPS. How many Royal Mail employees do you ever hear of "going postal?"

quote:

The Royal Mail is definitely not in the same league as the USPS. How many Royal Mail employees do you ever hear of "going postal?"

None. The expression has no UK meaning that I know of.