BS: A new political low take 2

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 02:24 PM

I just find it offensive to suggest that someone who has lost his wife to extremism has extremist links. I thought that was enough justification. If you do not, fair enough, but I am not on my own nor, I suspect, are you.

Not alone? Of course we are not. Every possible view is held by someone.
So what?

I would agree with you Dave if it was a baseless smear, but I doubt that it was.
If it has some truth in it, is it still "a new political low?"
How certain are you of the facts Dave?

Have you dropped your objection to him replying to the criticism put to him live on radio?

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 03:32 PM

No. I have not Keith, but it is late on Christmas eve and there are better things to do with our time. I intend to enjoy myself. I suggest you do the same. Time is the thing that is in most short supply.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 06:04 PM

Keith has the matter summed up to a tee.
Dave should admit that he was wrong in his attempt to smear Mr Farage.

Happy Christmas to all members lapsed, current and debarred! :0)

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 06:29 PM

Farage sets himself up to be smeared, ridiculed, dismissed, disbarred, impeached, whatever else you can do to him. His politics are loathsome - even this American knows that much.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 06:36 PM

Well said.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 07:09 PM

Mr Farage is arguably one of the most influential politicians of the last few years.

He almost singlehandedly secured the referendum in favour of the UK leaving the EU, he also assisted Mr Trump in his dramatic victory in the American Presidential election.....he is an extremely clever and well informed politician.....The fact that YOU do not agree with him or his views is of no consequence, the facts speak for themselves.

The policy of unregulated immigration is unsustainable and Mr Farage was instrumental in making every mainstream political Party accept that fact......"liberals" can cry racist till they are blue in the face but the facts say something very different.....we must have the ability to control our borders and that does not mean an end to immigration, it simply means that we can control who and in what number people migrate into the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 07:12 PM

Acme if you are so well versed on UK politics could you please give some examples of Mr Farage's "loathsome politics"?

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 08:03 PM

Mr. Farage, Ache, is a piece of shit. As is Trump.

Get over it.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 25 Dec 16 - 02:12 AM

Ake, you can dish out all of the SHIT that the Russians pushed about Hillary, yet the long-standing facts about the racist BNP's Farage upset you? Pull up your socks, fella, if you can keep dishing it out for months on end you'd damn well better be able to take it when your rep is a documented as being a bigot and a panderer to the lowest-common-denominator. There is no question as to his low moral character. His nasty characterizations of anyone who isn't a white xtian are deplorable.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Dec 16 - 05:13 AM

I agree with all you say about his rotten character but must correct you slightly: Farage is not a member of the BNP. UKIP is his outfit. I'm sure that's what you meant. They are different but not exactly poles apart.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Dec 16 - 06:39 AM

Mr Farage and the BNP ARE "poles apart".

Acme's comment indicate her grasp of UK politics, I am still waiting for examples of his "loathsome politics"

Every thinking person is disturbed about the effects of Islamic Fundamentalist terrorism, especially given the present rates of migration from the middle East through the EU open borders, your characterisation of all these thinking people who number many millions in the West, is not only "deplorable" but inaccurate.

In fact you do not have a dog in this race, as the US does not and quite rightly would not, accept unregulated immigration from these regions.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Dec 16 - 07:23 AM

Acme can speak for herself, but I feel pretty confident in saying that she has a far better grasp of everything that we have ever discussed here than you. By a country mile. Well, I suppose you may know a little more about Pedigree Chum for greyhounds.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Dec 16 - 08:06 AM

Examples of Farages loathsome politics

1. As detailed in this thread
2. The poster that he supported showing queues of dark skinned people waiting to get into the UK
3. Referring to Barack Obama as a loathsome creature who cannot stand Britain

Three just off the top of my head. Do you support him attacking a widower by suggesting he has links to the extremism that killed his wife, ake?

Oh, and a merry Christmas to you too.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 25 Dec 16 - 10:39 AM

UKIP, BNP, they're both loathesome. Sounds like UKIP has filled in the power vacuum when BNP fell apart a while back. Ake, I'm not debating this with you any more, and if you continue to trash threads with your one-note statements (they couldn't be considered "argument" in the sense of debate because you show no evidence of learning or adjusting your opinions based upon current events or FACTS) you may find yourself edited out of conversations.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Dec 16 - 12:33 PM

OK Dave, Keith has already dealt with your attempted smear of Mr Farage, so nothing further needs to be said on that point.

Regarding President Obama, Mr Farage called him a "loathsome individual" after he had come to the UK in an attempt to influence the result of the EU referendum....something which had absolutely nothing to do with him or the USA. He threatened us that should we vote to leave the EU we would be "put right to the back of the queue" regarding any trade deals, completely ignoring the so called "special relationship which is supposed to exist between our two nation.
Apparently this relationship only exists when warmongering US presidents require support or somewhere to refuel their "rendition" aircraft?

The queues of people were not in my opinion dark skinned, more like Eastern European or Middle Eastern and the queues were to accurately represent the numbers of people who were lining up to take advantage of the EU ruling on freedom of movement. The last figures show that numbers entering the UK through EU auspices have indeed increased and will continue to increase until Brexit is realised.

Acme, I have no wish or intention of discussing with you, so you can ignore my posts....however it is unfair to silence me simply because you do not agree with my political views. There are other members who like to discuss politics.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Dec 16 - 02:17 PM

The people in the queue were refugees.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Dec 16 - 02:20 PM

it is unfair to silence me simply because you do not agree

Agreed - but then there's the fact that you have no bloody idea what you're talking about, that you invent your own "facts"[sic] and that you persist in smearing Farcebook-style feces about all over the place.

So while there may not be a case for "silencing", there's most assuredly one for calling your bullshit out for the bullshit that it is.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Dec 16 - 02:49 PM

That's fair enough Greg, that's your opinion.

Although I disagree with you over this partisan politics issue, I still find you straight and often funny....I respect you for that.

I do not respect trolls, two faced creeps or arse lickers whatever shade of political opinion they promote.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Dec 16 - 03:23 PM

As-salāmu alaykum   لسَّلَامُ عَلَيْكُمْ Ake.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Dec 16 - 03:36 PM

Wa alaikum assalaam...Greg,   :0)

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Dec 16 - 07:57 AM

I have not attempted to smear Farage. Just reported what happened. If you saw it as a smear then surely you must agree he was wrong to do what he did. But even had I done so, I am perfectly within my rights to call out what I see as 'a new political low' which I believe it is. Others do not. Keith does not beieve it is and has told us his reasons for not believing so. You have not answered my question though, ake. Do you believe it is right that anyone should be allowed to besmirch a good man with misinformation that, ultimately, suggests that Brendan Cox has links with the very idealism that killed his wife and not have anyone comment on it?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Dec 16 - 09:23 AM

Firstly I do not accept the context of the question.
Secondly as you know very well, it is a "Loaded Question"
Thirdly, if you require any further information on my views, refer to my post to Greg, 25th Dec 16   2:49pm.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Dec 16 - 09:49 AM

You have heard the Mafia context excuse dozens of times in your life.

It goes like this, "It's not personal it's business".

With Donald Trump the context has been the reverse of the Mafia.

It goes like this, "it's not business, it's personal".

Both context's are a dangerous evil but the one based on a personality disorder is the most unpredictable.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Dec 16 - 05:11 AM

"Do you support him attacking a widower by suggesting he has links to the extremism that killed his wife" - Asks DtG

Now please feel free to correct me on any of the following that is factually wrong:

Point 1: Jo Cox was murdered by Thomas Mair, a 52-year-old Batley and Spen constituent who had a history of psychiatric problems and links to the U.S.-based National Alliance, a neo-Nazi group".

Initial reports indicated that the gunman shouted "Britain first" as he carried out the attack.

The far-right Britain First party issued a statement denying any involvement or encouragement in the attack and suggested that the phrase "could have been a slogan rather than a reference to our party".

At Mair's trial a witness stated that he shouted, "This is for Britain. Britain will always come first".

Question 1 for DtG: What proven evidence is there of Brendan Cox being a supporter or member of the US-based National Alliance, the only political movement Mair had any sort of connection with?

Point 2: "Well, he would know more about extremists than me, wouldn't he. He backs organisations like Hope Not Hate, who masquerade as being lovely and peaceful, but actually pursue violent and very undemocratic means." - Reported words of Farage

The exchange that prompted the above was nothing whatsoever to do with the murder of Jo Cox, it was about the Christmas Market attack in Berlin.

Question 2 to DtG: Where and when does Nigel Farage make any reference to the murder of Jo Cox?

Point 3: After her death, Brendan Cox set up a Memorial Trust in memory of his wife. There were three beneficiaries all selected by Brendan Cox, one of them was the "Hope not Hate" group referred to by Nigel Farage.

Question 3 to DtG: Is the following true with regard to "Hope not Hate" - In November 2016 a press release from Hope not Hate exaggerated the findings of a report on abusive social media following the murder of Jo Cox MP by a right-wing extremist. The press release was used by several national newspapers which subsequently withdrew the articles - Source: The Economist. 17th December 2016 ISSN 0013-0613. Article "A supposed outpouring of online hatred against Jo Cox, a murdered MP, was exaggerated".

Answer those questions honestly and you will find that Nigel Farage said nothing that could be even remotely interpreted as him - attacking a widower by suggesting he has links to the extremism that killed his wife.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Dec 16 - 05:20 AM

Dave,
Do you support him attacking a widower by suggesting he has links to the extremism that killed his wife, ake?

He did not suggest that.
He suggested that he had links to a different extremism.
If that is a lying smear, it is indeed despicable.

If there is some truth in it is fair comment.

Whatever else he may be, Farage is wily and clever, and not known for making claims that subsequently prove false.
I know nothing about Brendan and the organisation referred to but I predict that the legal action will be quietly dropped or that it fails.

Steve,

The people in the queue were refugees.

They were all young (military age) men.
Real refugees tend to be less homogenous so economic migrants may be a more suitable description.

Steve and Dave,
Farage's politics are those of UKIP whose manifesto is available on line.
Please identify the most loathsome bit or any loathsome bits.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Dec 16 - 05:52 AM

They were refugees. I don't bloody care how old they looked. They were nothing to do with the sort of EU immigration that the racist Farage continually prattles on about. The photo was inappropriately used by him to make some point or other. Try to be honest about something for a change, Keith. And you have now said three times that he is not known for making false claims. So it's true that we give the EU £350 million per week, is it? So it's true that the £350 million per week will be spent on the NHS, is it?

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Dec 16 - 07:20 AM

Sorry ake, I don't understand how the post to Greg has any bearing on my question to you. You need to explain.

Teribus - Simply linking Brendan Cox to any sort of extremism is hurtful to the grieving family. That is the point and it makes your questions irrelevant.

Keith - See above.

Farage is indeed wily and clever. He will make sure that he has nothing to answer for in law while managing to smear those who stand against him. It is a transparent tactic and I, along with many others, believe he is indeed a loathsome character. I am sure he has no interest in other peoples opinions anyway unless he can see some way of promoting himself. As he did here.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Dec 16 - 08:19 AM

Far from my questions being irrelevant as you put DtG - Your reluctance to address them stems from the fact that it was YOU who were the one that did the linking, based on absolutely nothing.

Nigel Farage did not make any reference at all to the murder of Jo Cox, and most certainly did not make any reference to any association between Brendan Cox or the person who killed her (Please note NO right wing organisation had any connection with the death of Jo Cox - If you dispute that then offer up some hard substantive evidence - I am not the slightest bit interested in opinion)

Is "Hope not Hate" an "extremist" organisation?? It is certainly "militant" in what it sees as it's chosen causes that would prompt it to push faux-news knowing it to be inaccurate and misleading - that makes them rather dangerous. Brendan Cox chose "Hope not Hate" as a beneficiary of the funds raised after the his wife's murder - so the link between Brendan Cox and "Hope not Hate" is an undeniable fact.

As a result of this exchange "Hope not Hate" has resorted to crowdfunding to raise the money it would require to sue Nigel Farage (Apparently the sums of money they get from Trades Unions and the Jo Cox Fund aren't sufficient). I pray that Hope Not Hate does sue Farage because it will allow this debate to move beyond arrogant, politically partisan virtue signalling to a genuine examination of the facts.

1: Is Hope Not Hate really "a well-respected, civil society organisation"? I would remind you that it was not Farage but that bastion of rational and independent journalism - The Economist - which revealed that Hope not Hate exaggerated 'hate speech' claims by over 3000 percent following the murder of Jo Cox MP. The Hope not Hate website has also published opinion columns by Fiyaz Mughal, director of the 'anti-Islamophobia' website Tell Mama - which itself lost all its Government funding after hugely inflating the number of hate crimes following the murder of Lee Rigby.

Not much respect there then - especially for the facts.

2: I Would point out, too, that it is not Farage, but the former communications advisor of Hate not Hope - Dan Hodges - who says "Hope not Hate" uses "dirty, underhand, low down, unscrupulous" tactics in their efforts to crush political opponents. I think we can probably take the 'civil' out of the 'civil society organisation' assertion.

3: Jo Cox's husband was happy to overtly blame right wingers for creating the context that led to his wife's murder, but that he now expresses a moral objection when Farage, not unreasonably, draws attention to the sadly inconvenient fact that Merkel opened her borders to mass migration despite being warned at the time (not least by ISIS) that killers would be travelling amongst the refugees.

In a Court of Law under rules of evidence I suspect that Hope Not Hate will come off rather the worse in the encounter.
 

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Dec 16 - 08:32 AM

She opened her doors to refugees. Let's be careful, unlike Farage, to keep that entirely separate from the free movement of EU citizens.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Dec 16 - 09:48 AM

Teribus, I don't know how I can explain this any more clearly. Neither Farage nor I nor anyone else has suggested Brendan Cox had any links with the person that killed his wife. What I am saying is that I find it wrong that Farage suggested that Brendan Cox had links with ANY exremist organisation while the Cox family are still grieving after Jo Cox's death at the hands of an extremist. It was unfeeling and, in my opinion, a despicable thing to do. You may find it justified or you may see nothing wrong with it. That is your right just as it is mine to express my views.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Dec 16 - 10:30 AM

At least my views on Farage are not as extreme as some :-)
DtG

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Dec 16 - 11:33 AM

Dave the Gnome - 27 Dec 16 - 09:48 AM

Teribus, I don't know how I can explain this any more clearly. Neither Farage nor I nor anyone else has suggested Brendan Cox had any links with the person that killed his wife.

Now that DtG is the exact opposite of what you state here:

Dave the Gnome - 25 Dec 16 - 08:06 AM

"Do you support him attacking a widower by suggesting he has links to the extremism that killed his wife"

And again here:

Dave the Gnome - 23 Dec 16 - 02:18 PM

"when a public figure abuses his prominent position to tell the world a widower is linked to the very thing his wife was fighting against when she was murdered"

At NO POINT AT ALL has Farage EVER told the world that - and you damn well know it.

"The day after Cox died, 17 June 2016, Brendan Cox set up a GoFundMe page named "Jo Cox's Fund" in aid of three charities which he described as "closest to her heart": the Royal Voluntary Service, Hope not Hate, and the White Helmets, a Syrian civil defence group."

See any connection there between Brendan Cox, purportedly Jo Cox, and the militant campaigning group "Hope not Hate"? That is the "Hope not Hate" group that according to Dan Hodges, uses "dirty, underhand, low down, unscrupulous" tactics in their efforts to crush political opponents.

How about this for a piece of gross misrepresentation from Nick Lowles writing in the Guardian:

When Nigel Farage used a radio interview this week to publicly attack Brendan Cox, husband of the murdered Labour MP Jo Cox, he lashed out in the most unbelievable way. Just six months after Jo was murdered by neo-Nazi Thomas Mair, the former Ukip leader attempted to pin the extremist tag on Brendan Cox because of his association with the organisation I head, Hope not Hate.

Here again is what Nigel Farage said:

"Well, he would know more about extremists than me, wouldn't he. He backs organisations like Hope Not Hate, who masquerade as being lovely and peaceful, but actually pursue violent and very undemocratic means." - Reported words of Farage

It is undeniable that Brendan Cox did provide financial backing to "Hope not Hate" - matter of audited record.

It is not Brendan Cox who is being tarred with the "extremist" label - it is "Hope not Hate" who Farage views as being "extremist".

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Thompson
Date: 27 Dec 16 - 11:49 AM

This thread seems like the definition of "the expense of spirit in a waste of time", but could I ask both sides for one fact, please? How many immigrants have entered Britain in the last 10 years, where from, and what proportion of the population do they make up?

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Dec 16 - 11:53 AM

From Mr Shaw..."Try to be honest about something for a change, Keith. And you have now said three times that he is not known for making false claims. So it's true that we give the EU £350 million per week, is it? So it's true that the £350 million per week will be spent on the NHS, is it?"

Mr Farage had absolutely nothing to do with the Vote Leave claim that £350,000 COULD be used on the NHS.

Pay particular attention to the word "could"

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Dec 16 - 12:13 PM

Nothing of what you C&Pd makes any difference to my position, Teribus and I have not suggested anything contrary at all.

Jo Cox was fighting against extremism and it was extremism that killed her. To link Brendan Cox with extremism is callous and uncalled for. That is my position and has been consistently so throughout the thread. I have never stated anywhere that Farage has tried to link Brendan Cox with anyone specific. Just that he implies that Brendan Cox supports extremism. I may not be as wily as Farage but I do know what I both said and meant!

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Dec 16 - 12:19 PM

Absolute rubbish. He was the leader of the party that hoodwinked the public into voting leave and he was the prime mover for leave. All round him leave campaigners in his own party as well as within Tory ranks were saying those things whether he uttered them or not (and he did). Did you hear him saying that the bus ad was a lie? No you did not. Did you hear him protesting that the NHS WASN'T going to get the money? No you did not. Some nice twisting and turning when confronted with the reality, for sure, but no retraction. Those things suited him down to the ground and he had ample opportunities to correct them. Did he do so? No he did not. Not one word until he'd safely won the vote. You might as well claim that Pontius Pilate had nothing to do with the death of Jesus.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Dec 16 - 12:20 PM

That was aimed at akenaton.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Dec 16 - 12:24 PM

For Thompson:

Immigration last 10 years

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 Dec 16 - 12:33 PM

Ake, you are mistaken the bus clearly states "lets fund our NHS instead"

No could or should.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Dec 16 - 12:45 PM

Raggytash, the statement had nothing to do with Mr Farage.
Boris Johnston made the original statement which included the word COULD.

Mr Shaw is completely wrong to credit the slogan to Mr Farage. He did so in an attempt to better Keith (that would be a first) :0)
Fortunately his claim has been exposed as "more made up shit"

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Dec 16 - 12:46 PM

We "could" fund the NHS that amount. A hair dye will cover "up to 100% of the grey".   A bleach kills "up to 99%" of germs. These are vapid noises of no value or merit, not serious points. And anyone who makes them is knowingly practicing deceit.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Dec 16 - 01:08 PM

DMcG - 27 Dec 16 - 12:46 PM - Complete and utter BS DMcG and you are the one guilty of deliberate misrepresentation

Statement 1: We "could" fund the NHS that amount.

Is a statement detailing a possible future course of action - COULD as Akenaton says is the operative word. It is not a definite statement of intention.

Statement 2: A hair dye will cover "up to 100% of the grey".

That is a definite s statement to the efficiency of the product - WILL being the operative word.

Statement 3: A bleach kills "up to 99%" of germs.

A definite claim and statement of the efficiency of the product.

In other words DMcG you are comparing Apples to Oranges.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 Dec 16 - 01:14 PM

I am only stating the wording on the side of the "Battle Bus"

If any party meant to say £350 million COULD be spent on the NHS they should not have written "We send the EU £350 Milllion a week, Let's Fund our NHS instead, Vote Leave" "Let's take back control"

That is quite clear to most sane, rational people but obviously not so to people who prefer to argue in semantics.

Neither Johnson or Farage, who as you correctly state was not a part of that particular fiasco, did anything to suggest that it was not the case that monies would or could be directly transferred.

Farage had his own mistruths to pedal "Leave the EU and restore our Sovereignty" "Make Britain a self governing nation again" "Lower energy prices and scrapping 'green' taxes" etc etc before he went back to collecting his 96,000 Euro salary plus expenses for being a MEP.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 Dec 16 - 01:29 PM

A 96,000 Euro plus expenses, I should add, that has increased in Sterling value by about 10% since the Brexit vote.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Dec 16 - 01:40 PM

You do have a point Raggytash, but a completely different one from the point Mr Shaw was attempting to make?

The slogan was carelessly worded but not uttered by Mr Farage. In fact I did hear him in an interview saying that not all the money would be spent on the NHS ....in his opinion.
Mr Farage would of course have no say in where the money was spent?

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Dec 16 - 02:07 PM

ah!! silly me, the penny has dropped regarding D Mc G......It was that intervention by MrT that did it.

I must be getting old or someone is getting careless.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Dec 16 - 04:15 PM

Not really, Teribus. The point of all three statements is to make an association in the listeners mind between the item and the number
The exact words are not critical when we are really talking about the 'feeelong' created by the phrases. And they are intentionally deceitful. Let us assume you are right and the claim was just about a possible course of action. Then any other course of action is equally possible. They could have said a possible action was to give tax incentives to businesses, but they didn't choose that. They could have said they would spend it in flood defences but they didn't.   Out of all possible 'courses of action' they chose the NHS. And the reason was to build an association between spending this money and the NHS. Or do you have an alternative explaination why NHS was the possible route they choose to emphasise?

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Dec 16 - 05:06 PM

DMcG and Raggtytash are both absolutely right. I care not a jot who coined the £350 million per week bus slogan or the suggestion that the money could or should go to the NHS. Farage and his party were more than happy to be associated with those lies. There was no retraction, apart from wriggling when pressed, until after the vote was in the bag. Whether the slogan was initially uttered by Farage is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is that he has a very big mouth and was more than capable of dismissing the slogan as lies. Which he didn't. The perpetuation of the lie was right up his street.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Dec 16 - 06:30 PM

Farage evil is amateur balderdash.

I RAISE YOU 2 Trump tweets " let it be an arms race " & European leaders are weak

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Dec 16 - 06:34 PM