BS: uk by-elections

Subject: BS: uk by-elections
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 03:48 AM

It looks like a disappointment for UKIP, a catastrophe for Labour and a triumph for the Tories.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Iains
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 04:24 AM

So, all in all, no surprises. Is labour sinking to the bottom of the swamp?

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 05:43 AM

Yes labour is sinking , but perhaps that is better than floating with Turds like the careerists who inhabit the Parliamentary Party.

I think perhaps, as the labour party has no constituency any longer, Mr Corbyn should consider renaming his movement?

With Brexit, there is a good chance of economic regeneration if efficient and Long Term policies are applied by Mrs May and her team. Immigration rates are already beginning to fall, and wholesale retraining of our redundant workforce is required
Mr Corbyn's movement could act as a real alternative for the future....patience is indeed a virtue.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 05:46 AM

It seems that we are beginning to " channel" the US in voter rejection of the "liberal" political elite.....Perhaps the cool breeze of reality is beginning to blow over political matters.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Iains
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 06:35 AM

Labour policies get very little support from me, but to see them sink into the sunset is not healthy. Democracy needs a strong opposition in order to function properly, no matter which party is in power.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 06:37 AM

Nice to know Ukip remain in the lunatic fringe
"cool breeze of reality"
More like the tramp of jackboots
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 07:15 AM

Nice to know Ukip remain in the lunatic fringe

They beat both the Tories and Lib Dems in Stoke.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 07:15 AM

Trump the Thug in the White House, Beppo the Clown in Italy, Terry the Arse-licker in Westminster, and Marine, the scourge of the Jews heading for the Elysee Palace alongside madman Geert Wilders in Holland.
Foul stench of corruption rather than the "cool breeze of reality"
I read with some hilarty that Don the Don wants America to become part of the commonwealth - maybe they'll let him build a golf course at Chequers!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 08:11 AM

Iains, the problem is the Labour party careerists are not a viable opposition.....Look what happened when Blair was in power the worst of both worlds......I think we are stuck with the conservatives for the foreseeable future.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Iains
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 08:39 AM

Ake. you are probably correct. Perhaps we have a major problem with the selection mechanism. Many of the muppets are pre-selected before being paraded in front of the electorate.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 11:42 AM

Another failure for the polls. Through Question Time last night there were various comments that it was believed that Labour had held both seats.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 03:56 AM

Does it mean that Labour is "sliding towards irrelevance" and becoming irrelevant to the very people it was created to support?

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 06:14 AM

Net immigration may be beginning to fall, which is a very bad thing for our economy, and the NHS and other services. One of the things which may start to happen is that skilled and productive workers, both immigrants and British, begin to leave for countries in the mainstream. I know that this is already happening in the Higher Education sector, and anecdotally in the Financial Services sector as well.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 07:35 AM

"Mainstream" David? What "mainstream"? Where?

By every metric going our economy is out performing that of the EU. Unemployment rate roughly half that of the EU. London still remains as the largest financial hub in the world and that will continue to be the case, it will certainly not lose out to Europe where the EU hopes to increase taxes on EVERY transaction whether inter EU or International.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 07:41 AM

You speak as though you're a supporter of Corbyn,   Ake. I've not much time for the man. he seems a bit of an idiot to me. Not a great orator, no strong positive ideas - except spend a lot of money, no desire to face down anyone who's got us in the shit, and expects the armed forces to put their lives on the line armed with sticks and cardboard boxes.

Plus he has got together a gang of foul mouthed delinquents into the Labour Party who will drive out any moderate support.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 08:03 AM

I'm afraid I agree with much of what you say Al, but I am supporter of a socialist soci-economic system which can prove sustainable in the very long term.....we shall all be financially worse off, there will be none of the waste we see today, we will be required to be responsible for aspects of our behaviour and that of our families.
Waste of resources will be viewed as a crime.....and all "liberals" will be transported to Rockall. I think we can reckon on about five ....after three weeks on half the minimum wage.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 09:41 AM

The mainstream EU which runs a trade surplus in both goods and services Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 10:21 AM

Good heavens David is that why the economy of the EU is stagnant do those figures you are using for the performance of the EU include the performance of the UK?

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 11:27 AM

Yes I suppose if the world were to start again tomorrow that would be fine. Unfortunately we are where we are. Ex imperialist nation with unfriendly faces everywhere.
Education system somewhere in pounds shillings and pence era. All the caPITAL IN THE HANDS OF THE FAMILIES WHO WERE AT hENRY viii'S COURT. so no chance of investment, not when you can get a ten year old digging up coal on the other side of the world - what with free movement of capital. In the EU with all our trading partners particularly the Spanish nicking the fish from our chips - we don't even drive on the same side of the road as them!

socialist system would be nice, but Corbyn for godsake...

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 12:47 PM

Ah well Al, there we must disagree, a future socialist system will not be "nice", it will be gruelling and selfless, much more so than Mrs Thatcher's regime.

It will not be a choice, it will be a survival technique for humanity.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 01:53 PM

Teribus, you know very well that they would be better without the UK.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/euro-area/balance-of-trade

Scroll down to where it is broken down by country.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 04:32 PM

we do indeed disagree, isms and ocracies come a long way behind being nice.

niceness is vital.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 04:51 PM

Don't get me wrong Al, I would prefer it to be "nice", but something tells me the establishment won't leave without employing every low underhand trick in the book.

Unfortunately there never seems to have been a nice and effective leader.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 05:14 AM

"Teribus, you know very well that they would be better without the UK."

Excellent Mr.Carter, looks like we got the Brexit vote right then. And as we are such poor performers doesn't that mean that our last 43 years in the EU has done us no good at all. So we as fifth largest economy in the world, shake loose from the restraints of the EU and go back to trading with the rest of the world. Win-Win situation all round apart from the fact that Germany loses it's best "European customer" and the EU as a whole loses it's second largest net contributor. Can't really work out what the "Remoaners" are complaining about.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 07:23 AM

No, before being in the EU the UK was known as the "sick man of Europe", remember that? Sure it was trading with the rest of the world, mostly at a loss.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 01:27 PM

Lots of things have changed since 1973 David. In the world, in the UK and in Europe. The EEC worked, the EU does not.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 03:35 PM

Works for me. Framework I-VII, Horizon2020, Erasmus, ERDF. Not easily replaced, and definitely not replaced by anything in the knowledge of UK tories. The EU has been and remains a brilliant success, and the UK's future exclusion is to its detriment.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 04:40 PM

i don't think the eec 'worked'. i didn't vote for it. sick man of europe was what the toffs said.

i was proud of that england. nearly full employment. no beggars on the street, no hard drugs problem.   a socialist government that wouldn't join in America's vietnam adventure.

entry into the eec meant the start of the end for the one nation tories, and the end of respect for the society we had planned after the second world war.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 06:16 AM

Big Al, I don't think that any of that had to do with the EEC, that had to do with electing Thatcher, when we had already been in the EEC for 4 years. The EEC and the EU served to mitigate some of the worst excesses of Thatcherism. Also, if you think there were no beggars on the streets before 1975 you have either a very poor memory or you were walking around with your eyes closed.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 07:01 AM

Of course it's all Thatcher's fault - how boringly predictable of you Mr. Carter.

Tell me what opportunities have there been to reverse every single measure enacted under Thatcher's Ministry? How many of them were? How many were emulated by other European Governments?

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 08:20 AM

Every single general election since. And if some were emulated by other European governments this just goes to show that her baleful influence did not stop at the channel.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 09:37 AM

If her influence was so baleful how come none of the measures she implemented were reversed?

Big questions about council tax looming. At present it is grossly unfair, Poll Tax wasn't and it is a pity that Council Tax replaced it. Strong contender for replacement of Council Tax is a form of local income tax which is just another form of levying a poll tax - i.e. each wage earner pays it not each householder.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 02:06 PM

Because she was replaced with similarly baleful people. Though some were reversed as with the Poll Tax you mention.

I would replace Council Tax with Land Value Tax. That would be much fairer.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 02:13 PM

Unfortunately "Land" irrespective of value does not use local authority resources so you still end up with the retired widow living in her own home that she has saved, bought and paid for, paying more than a family with four wage earners living in a council house. I know which "Property" uses more of and puts greater strain on the facilities paid for and provided by the local authority.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 02:55 PM

The problem of the retired widow is solved by offsetting some of the tax liability against equity in the property. But surely, we want to encourage wage earners?

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 03:36 PM

Nothing to do with encouraging wage earners Mr. Carter is it? We are talking about funding the services that the council provides in the example I quote one pensioner ends up paying more than four people who all benefit. A fair and equitable arrangement would be that all pay for the services.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 05:47 PM

The money that council tax raises is a small proportion of what local services cost so let's not get too carried . We could raise the whole amount by income tax, but the concept of a local tax gives local people a stake in local politics. The argument is all about how to make that fair. A tax based on the supposed value of a house that is reviewed once in a blue moon is at best an extremely blunt instrument, and is unfairly skewed towards those at the bottom end paying disproportionately more. What price a mansion tax?

I'm with the LibDems (rare for me) in supporting a local income tax. Bureaucratic nightmare, of course, but fairer is fairer. Even better, what David says, a graduated land tax. You can't hide your land in offshore accounts. And it's fair because you didn't make the land.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 05:49 PM

Carried away. I didn't get carried away enough.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 07:35 PM

Steve Shaw - 27 Feb 17 - 05:47 PM
"I'm with the LibDems (rare for me) in supporting a local income tax. Bureaucratic nightmare, of course, but fairer is fairer. Even better, what David says, a graduated land tax. You can't hide your land in offshore accounts. And it's fair because you didn't make the land.

Rare for you? You voted for them you lying prat. That quoted passage of yours equates to:

David Carter (UK): "Sir we have two options A and B which one should we adopt A means we have more people paying in less and the second is based on making people pay more based upon an asset that they cannot realise. A graduated property tax."

Shaw: "Well I like the idea of A as it is fair, but a bit inconvenient to administer. But I like B better as it sits better with my ideology. I know property is only worth anything when it is actually sold. But according to what our comrades tell us only rich bastards have property so let's make them pay for the lot".

The rich bastards sell up and move elsewhere, nobody buys the property because of the taxes Shaw has to raise, so you end up collecting F**k All. Well done Shaw. No bloody wonder Labour is in such a God awful mess.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 09:15 PM

Have another ten pints, Bill. Hope your head's ok in the morning! 😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 03:03 AM

Pathetic Shaw - pity you weren't carried far away enough.

You may have to resort to alcohol to see yourself through the day Shaw I do not. Human nature drives people to pay only what they absolutely have to and what was shown to be the case in your "socialist", incentive free, workers paradises was that people only do the bare minimum, everything else then comes from graft, corruption and a black economy that is so essential and becomes so powerful that nobody can dare to take any effective action against it.

A local authority is required to raise £500,000,000 from a community that consists of 100,000 properties and 361,000 wage earners. The properties if following national statistics will comprise 64% privately owned, 18% privately owned rented property, 11% Housing Association stock and 7% Council owned.

Average bill required to provide the services from the local authority is £5,000 per property per year (£96.15 per week). 18% of this is Government or Council in effect paying itself with all associated admin costs as they collect their council taxes as a portion of the rent.

If however you raise the required sum by imposition of a local income tax that works out at £1,385 per person per year (£26.64 per week). Deducted at source the machinery is already in place to do this at no additional expense and no expense to the council.

In addition you make that local income tax deductible from your national income tax as it is an expense essential for life. Every wage earner pays it and the impact on national tax revenue is marginal. Were you to do the same thing with your property based system the impact would be marked and a gift to the rich.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Iains
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 03:43 AM

The only fair way to raise the required funds is from income, each according to their means. The easiest way to raise it would be by diverting a set percentage of income tax, as the mechanism for collection is already in place.
Of course the raving socialists would want to place a tax on capital as well:- the typical politics of envy.
The system in place at the moment of taxing a properties worth is heavily skewed to shaft those at the bottom. Typically the lowest band payment is about 1/3 of the highest, spread among 8 bands. House prices range from 100k£ to millions. This system is as unfair as the poll tax but did not generate as much resistance when introduced.
To put that in perspective the 8 bands range roughly 1k-3.5k£ p.a.
Av income, depending on sources, is 26/27k£ before deductions.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 05:57 AM

the party that fared the worse was UKIP, FOLLOWED BY LIB DEMS, the other two parties held a seat.
whatever spin the mediaputs on results, the above are facts

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 06:24 AM

Well no GSS

Stoke - Labour held a seat - with their 2015 majority cut by half. But UKIP ran them a creditable 2nd in Stoke (Had they stuck with their 2015 Candidate they might have won it)

Conservatives won what has always been considered a safe Labour seat.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 06:27 AM

They are facts, but not the important ones.
Labour held one seat but lost the other, and lost vote share on both.
The Tories took a seat, which is very unusual for a governing party, and gained vote share.
Ukip had a small gain in vote share in both, and beat both Tories and Lib Dems at Stoke.
The Lib Dems achieved what?

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Iains
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 07:06 AM

"The loss of Copeland is hugely significant for Labour as opposition parties hardly ever lose seats in by-elections. The public generally use the opportunity to deliver a blow against whoever is in power but on this occasion no anti-establishment feeling presented itself."
The Telegraph;

It appears the public know how to prioritise:
"Copeland is the home of the Sellafield nuclear decommissioning site which employs thousands of people in the area. Jamie Reed was a big advocate for Sellafield - indeed he resigned to go and work at the plant - but Jeremy Corbyn's lukewarm approach to protecting jobs there seems to have put voters off.

It seems that protecting these jobs was more important to voters in the area than the proposed closure of maternity services at Copeland hospital - something that Labour were relying on to fuel their vote."

It will be interesting to see the by election results for Gerald Kaufman's constituency when they appear. It was a very strong labour seat.
General Election 2015: Manchester Gorton[8][9] Party                                     Candidate                                 Votes          %         +/-                                                       Labour                Sir Gerald Kaufman         28,187         67.1         +17.0
Green                Laura Bannister         4,108         9.8         +7.0
Conservative         Mohammed Afzal         4,063         9.7         −1.4
UKIP                Phil Eckersley         3,434         8.2         N/A
LiberalDemocrat Dave Page                1,782         4.2         −28.4
TUSC                Simon Hickman                264         0.6         −0.3
Pirate                Cris Chesha                181         0.4         −0.2

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 07:21 AM

I would expect the Greens to do very well. If there was some tactical alliance with the Lib Dems, one of them could take the seat.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 07:43 AM

"You may have to resort to alcohol to see yourself through the day Shaw I do not."

I absolutely never touch alcohol during the day to "see myself through" or for any other reason, but I probably would if I were forced to live anywhere near you, rude sod. Oddly, despite your usual amusing splenetic outbursts, you seem to be agreeing with me about a local income tax.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: bobad
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 08:29 AM

Definition of hypocrisy:

Shaw to Teribus: Have another ten pints, Bill.

Shaw to Teribus: rude sod

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Stu
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 08:35 AM

"The Lib Dems achieved what?"

They're not going to achieve much in Stoke, which come as no surprise to anyone. The Lib Dems strengths are in other areas of the country and they will make gains here, after all they are the only ones sticking up for the 48%.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 02:37 PM

A UKIP

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 02:39 PM

A massive defeat for UKIP, ONE GOOD RESULT FOR LABOUR AND ONE GOOD RESULT FOR THE CONSERVATIVES.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 04:17 PM

The Labour victory in Stoke has gone a long way towards nobbling UKIP for good. They're imploding at the moment. Ragbag scumbag ratbags.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 03:50 AM

Whilst I agree with your last three words Steve, I think that the rest of your post might be over-optimistic. The issue at the moment is that the Tories, and even Labour, have stolen their clothes. This in the long run is not good for the country, and if and when the larger parties return to a more pragmatic approach (e.g. a Blair/Major approach), then the nastiness will resurface. I returned to supporting Labour after the Lib Dems sold out on tuition fees, after Labour have sold out on something more important I will not make that mistake again.

Manchester Gorton is a community which is both ethnically diverse, and highly educated (a lot of students and staff from the Manchester universities live there). I would see both the Lib Dems and the Greens doing very well, and if they formed some kind of a pact they could even take the seat.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 04:47 AM

Ukip came second at Stoke and gained vote share in both.
That is not a "massive defeat."

Sir Keir Starmer on the results for Labour,

"Sir Keir also dismissed excuses for Labour's Copeland by-election defeat put forward by Mr Corbyn and his allies, declaring: "I don't think some of the reasons put forward are compelling."
And pointing the finger of blame at Mr Corbyn, he added: "A number of things came up, including the direction of travel of the Labour Party, Labour's ability to communicate and understand what people are saying to them and, of course, the leadership of the Labour Party and we all know that."
http://news.sky.com/story/shadow-cabinets-keir-starmer-writes-off-labours-election-chances-10785427

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 06:40 AM

I have a cousin called David Carter who comes from Gorton, would you believe! My uncle still lives there.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 11:32 AM

This excellent article from the Times, this morning
Makes sense to me
Jim Carroll

BELIEVE IT OR NOT, CORBYN SHOULD LEAN FURTHER LEFT
Instead of continuing with this pathetic muddle, Labour's leader ought to go down fighting for a radical subversive agenda,
Let's be fair to Labour. Preparing briefing notes on what to say if you lose a by-election is a thankless task. I've done it quite a few times, and struggled even to convince myself.
Twenty years ago this week, when I was working for the party, the Tories lost a seat we held, Wirral South, with a 17 per cent swing to Labour. We were only a few weeks from a general election, but the advice we gave ministers who appeared on television was to say that this was only a protest vote. We had always regained the seats we lost at by-elections. Wirral South would come home in May and so would the country.
This wasn't remotely plausible. It sounded completely unconvincing at the time. And the country didn't come home at the general election. Nor did Wirral South. Indeed it is still held by Labour, five general elections laterf But what were we supposed to advise ministers to say? What was there to say?
When I was in the SDP we gave our spokesman some lines to use on the television results programme following the Bootle by-election. When the SDP finished behind the Monster Raving Loony Party, he looked at his briefing and opted to tell the presenter: "I was sort of hoping you had forgotten I was here."
In another SDP catastrophe, my friend as party campaign manager rang headquarters with the result and started giving the winner's percentage with several decimal places. You don't need all those, said HQ. Yes I do, replied my friend. If I don't include the decimal places, we scored zero. Some results simply can't be spun.
Yet even allowing for this, Labour's attempt to explain their debacle in Copeland last week has been abysmal. Their briefing paper leaked to my Times colleague Sam Coates, as most things do in the end, and it was an astonishingly weak effort.
The aim was to convince people that winning Copeland "was always going to be an uphill task", which is absurd, and that the real problem was "unique circumstances". My favourite part was the bit that blamed defeat on the Conservatives. "The Tories threw everything at Copeland," the brief complained. They then said the same thing about
Voters are fed up with mainstream offerings, they want an outsider
Stoke (the Tories "threw everything at it"). It is not necessary to write a statistics column to work out that this doesn't quite compute.
Unsurprisingly, given this thin stuff, party spokesmen have been freelancing, trying just about any old line since last Thursday.
Blaming the weather has been a particular favourite.
What's strange about this is that there was a ready-made position that could have been taken. And the fact that Labour hasn't taken it suggests that even Jeremy Corbyn has lost faith in his own thesis.
Here is the argument for a left- wing leadership: New Labour may have won three elections but its appeal had faded and cannot be renewed. This is not just because core Labour voters had begun to lose faith in it. It is also because it depended for success on a strong economy. This allows spending increases and redistribution without higher taxes on the well-off. After the banking crisis this was no longer possible.
So a more radical position was needed after both the Blairite and then Brownite versions of New Labour ran out of steam. The party can't repeat what Ed Miliband did, nor return to the politics of Tony Blair.
All over the world, this argument contends, centrists are being overthrown by radicals. The idea that you can only win elections by bunching in the middle has been disproven. Voters are fed-up with the mainstream offerings. They want an outsider, someone who isn't just another cookie-cutter pol, but an anti-politician. Labour needs to try something new, a bold radical departure. It can win on the left.
Instead of a traditional party centred on parliament, Labour should be a grassroots campaign, built through social media and attracting radical parties and pressure groups which can bring energy to the cause. The economy is going to hit a rough patch, the Tories will get tired and a vigorous extra-parliamentary campaign can run them ragged.
I've never been persuaded by this theory of how to win or remotely attracted to the sort of politics it leads to. But then I wouldn't be.
What astonishes me is the lack of faith Corbyn himself shows in what is the only argument for his leadership.
Daniel Finklestein, The Times 1st March 2016

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: The Sandman
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 01:11 PM

LABOUR came first in Stoke on Trent, So why are the mediaquestioning Corbyns leadership, and not the leadership of the lib dems or ukip?two parties that failed to win seats?

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 01:31 PM

"So why are the mediaquestioning Corbyns leadership,"
Like God, they are not on our side Dick
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: bobad
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 02:02 PM

So why are the mediaquestioning Corbyns leadership

It's all a plot by the Jew owned media and that nefarious "foreign government", don't you know, as is the anti-Semitism in the party.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 02:34 PM

Can't speak for the media but I am questioning his leadership because he won't stand up for the future of Britain in Europe.

The media are, as you know bobad, very largely foreign owned. And they have has such a corrosive influence on public discourse, not only over the last year but the last three decades, that I cannot help but feel that their proprietors, and one in particular, really wish the British people ill.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 02:40 PM

i suppose the reason virtually everyone is questioning Corbyn's leadership is that we don't really have a clear idea of whither we are headed.

there's a deal of confusion being felt.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 02:50 PM

"as is the anti-Semitism in the party."
So sayeth the man who blames the Jewish People for the srimes of the Israeli regime and would rather pander to antisemites by refusing to comment on an accusation the the Jewish members of Parliament refused to identify Labour semitism for the good of the party - not to mention dismissing all Jews who criticise Israel, such as Gerald Kaufman, as "Self Hating".
Give it a rest Bobad - your cover is well blown
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 02:39 AM

Jim Carroll - 01 Mar 17 - 11:32 AM

"This excellent article from the Times, this morning
Makes sense to me" - Jim Carroll

Really Jim?? I take it that you do know what Daniel Finklestein is saying don't you? It is in the first sentence:

"Labour's leader ought to go down fighting for a radical subversive agenda"

The bit in the middle is largely waffle, illustrating that Daniel Finklestein is a man of no real political conviction, in addition to detailing how abysmal Labour were but the bit right at the end was the bit I found most interesting:

"All over the world, this argument contends, centrists are being overthrown by radicals. The idea that you can only win elections by bunching in the middle has been disproven. Voters are fed-up with the mainstream offerings. They want an outsider, someone who isn't just another cookie-cutter pol, but an anti-politician."

Here Daniel Finklestein could equally well be talking about Donald Trump.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: The Sandman
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 03:18 AM

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT CORBYN IS, HE IS A MAN OF CONVICTION AND PRINICIPLES

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 03:27 AM

I agree GSS, but due to the power of the media and the establishment parties, is ideas are only accepted by a tiny militant minority.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Stu
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 03:55 AM

"is ideas are only accepted by a tiny militant minority"

Not true at all. Many of his ideas are accepted by the wider Labour movement, it's his leadership ability and style that people don't like.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 04:12 AM

"I take it that you do know what Daniel Finklestein is saying don't you? It is in the first sentence"
I know that, and have said exactly the same
Labour has no function if it a pale echo of Conservatism - Corbyn should fight on that principle, not an a watered-down destructive policy to win seats in a Parliament which has long ceased serving the British people as a whole and is now a private club on behalf of the few.
The bit in the middle is the most important statement that has been made regarding the role of the Labour Party - you are doing your old usual in taking the bit that suits your own agenda and discarding the awkward bits, as you did with your extracted bits on Attlee and the Bomb.
Any propagandist can do that, and does regularly.
Labour has to offer and alternative to increasing inequality in a country that is no longer able to stand on its own two feet and look to the well-being of the entire population - the last Irish election proved that.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 04:17 AM

And no - Finklestein could no as well be talking about Trump
Trump is a fascist with no interest for the welfare of the people - Billionaire politicians tend to be like that - that's why he had to go though the charade of passing on his financial interests before he could take office - a sick joke, publicly delivered.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 06:19 AM

GSS,

LABOUR came first in Stoke on Trent, So why are the mediaquestioning Corbyns leadership, and not the leadership of the lib dems or ukip?

Labour suffered a large loss in votes to the Tories. Opposition parties usually take votes from the governing party in elections.
Labour itself acknowledges that it performed very badly, and they should know.
That is why their leadership is being questioned again.

Ukip made a small vote gain but the result was disappointing for them, and their leadership is also being questioned.

The Lib Dems were pretty irrelevant.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Iains
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 06:37 AM

General Election 2015 Stoke Central


Labour         Tristram Hunt                12,220         39.3         +0.5
UKIP         Mick Harold                7,041         22.7         +18.3
Cons         Liam Marshall-Ascough 7,008         22.5         +1.5
Inde.         Mark Breeze                2,120         6.8         N/A
LibDem         Zulfiqar Ali                1,296         4.2         -17.5

By election 2017

Party         Candidate                Votes         %         ±
Labour         Gareth Snell                7,853         37.1         -2.2
UKIP         Paul Nuttall                5,233         24.7         +2.1
Conservative         Jack Brereton         5,154         24.3         +1.8
Liberal Democrat Zulfiqar Ali         2,083         9.8         +5.7

In the 2016 EU Referendum, Stoke-on-Trent (the whole council area) voted heavily to Leave the European Union: at 69.4%, this was the highest percentage in the West Midlands region. As the constituency is not coterminous with any local authority, the exact result for the parliamentary seat is unknown.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Mar 17 - 07:16 AM

On the dramatic loss of Labour members,
"However, former PLP chairman Lord Watts told the Times: "I think the tide is turning. I imagine people are losing heart because they can see the polls, they're talking to their neighbours and people they work with, and are coming to the conclusion Labour is not doing well and, at this point, not convincing the public."
Last week, Labour was humiliated by a historic defeat to the Tories in the Copeland byelection, a seat it had held for more than 80 years.
Reports of a membership slump come after figures showed Labour raised less money through donations than the Liberal Democrats in the last three months of last year. Party sources said it was the first time the Lib Dems had outstripped Labour in fundraising"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/03/labour-party-lost-members-mid-2016

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: The Sandman
Date: 03 Mar 17 - 07:26 AM

The leadership is being questioned because the media has it in for Corbyn, no one has questioned the Conservative leadership, however they failed to win the stoke on trent seat, that was a conservative failure.
Thersa May has proved she has no principles, she voted remain, but has changed her position so that she can further her career.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Mar 17 - 07:27 AM

Lord (Baron Watts is a right wing opponent of Jeremy Corbyn who has stated that New Labour should not reform itself but win elections on right wing policies
What else is he going to say?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: The Sandman
Date: 03 Mar 17 - 07:42 AM

Exactly,Jim.
Keith, Lib Dems are relevant , they took part in the election therfore they are relevant, they failed in both seats, as did ukip.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Stu
Date: 03 Mar 17 - 09:13 AM

"The leadership is being questioned because the media has it in for Corbyn"

The leadership is being questioned because there is no effective opposition at a time when we need it. There is no noise form the Labour benches about the way Brexit is being handled and no real attempt by Corbyn and Labour to ensure we stay in the single market and protect jobs and businesses that rely on Europe.

Corbyn was ideologically opposed to Europe and is in no rush to get the best deal when we leave; like the Brexiteers he simply wants out. After all, it's not him who will pay in the long run.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Mar 17 - 11:03 AM

Dick, I disagree with your assessment.

It is very rare for a governing party to take votes from opposition parties at by elections.

Labour previously had a large majority in both seats.
We saw a large swing away from Labour, a small swing to Ukip and a large swing to the governing party which is an extraordinarily rare occurrence.

Hence my assessment in the OP,
"It looks like a disappointment for UKIP, a catastrophe for Labour and a triumph for the Tories. "

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Mar 17 - 11:05 AM

Of course Corbyn was opposed to the EU...he has been so all his political life, after all the man is a socialist and not a "liberal".
He was drawn into supporting remain in an attempt to keep his shambolic Party together.....all the politicians thought remain would win quite comfortably...took their eyes off the ball, didn't they.

How can you say that there is anyone of any political stature in the PLP......self serving scum all of them.

Labour will be an opposition movement for the next few years, explaining what socialism means and the effects that it will have on people's lives in the future. Within the next decade, their will be great changes to UK society...unimaginable changes, and socialism will play a large part, but it will not be the sort of socialism which is presently represented by Labour MP's, the Ummuna's, the Benn's, and all the other Labour "snowflakes"

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Mar 17 - 07:39 PM

Say goodnight to the folks, Gracie...

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 04 Mar 17 - 11:25 PM

just in case anyone else is wondering

coterminous
kəʊˈtəːmɪnəs/Submit
adjective
having the same boundaries or extent in space, time, or meaning.
"the coterminous Borough and Parliamentary Constituency of Blyth Valley"

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 04 Mar 17 - 11:30 PM

its a bit like one of those words from a 2 Ronnies sketch

I say Smith your garden seems coterminous ...

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 17 - 06:12 AM

Here is a comment from Prescott.
It is not helpful to dismiss such comments with "He would say that."
The fact that such prominent people are expressing such criticisms of the party serve to show how deep in the mire Labour is.

"I've served under nine Labour leaders and fought 12 elections, with the majority of those years under a Tory government.
When I entered Parliament in 1970, Labour averaged 11million votes – or 40 per cent.

That fell to 30 per cent at the last election with eight million voting Labour. We've been as low as 25 per cent in some opinion polls.
So Labour has lost over three ­million votes over 45 years.
You can't put it down to any one leader. But if this decline continues, the chance of Labour returning to government is impossible.
During my 47 years in Parliament I have attended over a thousand Parliamentary Labour Party meetings as a backbencher and Deputy Leader. While they've always been boisterous, what was said in the room always stayed in the room.
Now I regularly see a minority of MPs texting journalists a negative running commentary of the meeting. But it wasn't helped that after losing Copeland to the Tories, the leader and two of his Shadow
­Cabinet members(Abbott and Chakrabati) failed to turn up.
One MP showed me a picture of the missing women – they were drinking wine in the Lords bar! No wonder their fellow MPs were ­furious. Labour, from the leader to every MP, has to get its act together or we're finished."

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Mar 17 - 06:32 AM

"He would say that."
Why not
"Two Jags" Prescott was one of those parliamentarians who abandoned his socialist principles and opted for career politics - he was Blair's 'running mate as Deputy Prime Minister when Labour formally abandoned its principles and became a watered down Tory Party.
Labour's parliamentary vote reflects the abandoning of those principles - under Blair, it reached it nadir and since then it has just fumbled its way along.
Unless you are prepared to accept those facts rather than to attempt to smear Labour as if it was a left party losing support on the basis of right wing statements, you are pissing in the wind
There is a battle going on in the Labour Party at the present time between the establishment careerists who count parliamentary success as a goal and the membership, who have shown by their selection of leader, that a total change of direction is necessary in order to put the Party back on course.
If the Present Labour Perty were to romp home in the next General Election, it would not change Britain's present decline one iota - at present, it doesn't deserve to win a raffle.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Mar 17 - 06:49 AM

Give over, Keith. Your obsessive one-man Mudcat mission to badmouth Labour at every conceivable opportunity is threadbare, negative and tedious in the extreme. You're not telling us anything we don't already know. It's not as if you'd ever in your little life have hung on to any word of Bruiser John anyway. Find something else to talk about. How are the spring flowers in Hatfield Forest? The pussywillow is out here along the Bude canal, though rough winds do shake the darling buds of March this morning. Can Hertfordshire compete with that?

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Mar 17 - 07:48 AM

Soddin' nettle is coming up again in one of our flower beds. Any advice?

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 17 - 07:58 AM

I am not badmouthing Labour, but so many senior and prominent Labour names are.
It is worthy of discussion.
I love to see and walk among the flowers, but I come here for stimulating debate.
Why do you come here? Just to shut down debate?

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Mar 17 - 08:02 AM

I come here for stimulating debate.

And I thought you had no sense of humour, Keith. Good one :-D

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 17 - 08:39 AM

Matthew Turner in the Indy. today,

"As an ardent supporter of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership, I will be the first to admit that the Labour Party is in disarray. Latest opinion polling indicate a catastrophic defeat in a hypothetical general election, and despite fending off the threat of Ukip in Stoke, the loss of Copeland was a huge blow to all who wanted to see the Corbyn project succeed."

His solution,
"the only way this will be possible is by replacing the right wingers in the Labour Party. It is a prerequisite for the success of the Corbyn project. "

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Stu
Date: 06 Mar 17 - 08:47 AM

"Soddin' nettle is coming up again in one of our flower beds. Any advice?"

Nettle soup.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Raggytash
Date: 06 Mar 17 - 08:50 AM

I'm pleased to report that our fund raising for the Rescue Boat totalled £957.50 this weekend. A very good amount.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Mar 17 - 09:04 AM

"I am not badmouthing Labour, "
Yes you are Keith and you have been a leading badmouther since the false accusations of Antisemitism and misogyny - it all came from you.
As a right-winger, you have no interest in a putting right what has gone wrong in British politics - you have opposed every progressive suggestion and promoted some of the wworst developments in British politics - including your (non) support of Ukip's lunatic fringe.
Even your Mathew Turner quote (deliberately unlinked) was taken totally out of conteext so you can give the impression his article was agreeing with your claims
He is making exactly the same point as Daniel Finklestein was in the article I put up ealrier
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-labour-party-plp-left-wing-mandatory-reselection-a7613466.html
Dishonest, Keith - but I don't suppose you "win things" by telling the truth
Wonder how Briexters feel about the news that Vauxhall has just been purchased by the French - another major industrial gone walkabout!
No problem with the usual suspects, I shouldn't wonder
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Mar 17 - 09:25 AM

Listening to those stating that all is well within the Labour Party - No problems with racism, misogyny and threatening behaviour reminds me of the 1970s and Callaghan's, "Crisis! What crisis?". Labour and the country were in the shit in the 1970s, just as Labour is in the shit today - the deniers are the same - totally deluded.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Mar 17 - 09:58 AM

"Crisis! What crisis?
I know exactly what you mean - I feel the same when I ask for proof and none is forthcoming
Without specified and enumerated cases - there is no charge to answer
All we have are unfounded accusations
Maybe you can make a better job of providing this evidence than you did of providing examples of Keith's witnesses to his "implant" theory -but I won't hold my breath
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Mar 17 - 10:30 AM

Callaghan said nothing like that. Alt-truth again. Get busy, Teribus. We all love your steaming ripostes. Come here for stimulating debate, eh, Keith? Well next time you post, try it. That'll be a first! Rained Datsun cogs here this morning and our lane flooded. Windy too. We have sun with towering cumulonimbus capillatus anvils now. March hath cometh in like a lioneth. We had a very bracing stroll over the downs between Summerleaze and Crooklets beaches. Mrs Steve's making biscotti with cranberries and pistachios now and I'm listening to Mitsuko Uchida playing Mozart's Piano Concerto no 22 in E flat. My favourite pianist playing my favourite Mozart.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Mar 17 - 11:52 AM

Glorious sunshine here in Airedale at the moment. If this carries on the Damart longjohns can be put away. Made just down the road in Bingley BTW. Nick Dow on at Swinton tonight and I am very tempted but an hours drive back near midnight and getting up at 6am would probably kill me off at the moment.

Sorry if you read this, Nick, but I will be with you in spirit and will get to see you sooner or later :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Mar 17 - 12:06 PM

"Glorious sunshine here in Airedale at the moment."
What are you doing to that dod - gerroff
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 17 - 12:07 PM

Jim,
"I am not badmouthing Labour, "
Yes you are Keith

If that is not a lie, then find a quote!

the false accusations of Antisemitism and misogyny - it all came from you.

False or not, THEY ALL CAME FROM WITHIN LABOUR!
None came from me.
Again, if you are not lying, quote me!

As a right-winger, you have no interest in a putting right what has gone wrong in British politics

Untrue again! I am an ex-Labour voter.

Even your Mathew Turner quote (deliberately unlinked)

I said it was in today's Indie.
If that was not enough you could just google some text.
Nothing was "out of context. You lie again!

Here is the link which proves you a liar,
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-labour-party-plp-left-wing-mandatory-reselection-a7613466.html

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 17 - 12:14 PM

Steve and Dave,
Come here for stimulating debate, eh, Keith?

Yes I do. You people seem to be afraid of it.

Instead of engaging, or choosing not too, you prefer to make yet more failed attempts to prove me a bad person based on years old posts, or witter on about flowers!

What are you afraid of?

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 17 - 12:15 PM

Dave, I give you 100.
Make your day.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Raggytash
Date: 06 Mar 17 - 12:17 PM

Please miss it wasn't me, that big boy said it.

You ****ing posted it on this site therefore you are responsible for it.

Gods teeth is really is like listening to a spoilt brat!!

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Mar 17 - 12:45 PM

You have never debated anything here in your life, Keith. And no-one is afraid of you, be clear about that. Wittering on about the nice weather and spring flowers and even underpants is a damn sight more pleasant and ultimately rewarding than sparring pointlessly with a disreputable, dishonest, agenda-laden obsessive such as yourself. Not stop trolling by trying to stick to the point. 😄 Bit nippy out there today and the cumuli are still billowing. What's the betting on a sunset rainbow in the next 15 minutes?


🕵🏼‍♀️

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Mar 17 - 12:47 PM

Grrr! That should have been "stop." Nice sky out there. Be like me. Join the Cloud Appreciation Society!

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Mar 17 - 12:49 PM

Grrr again - no it shouldn't have. It should have said "Now stop..."

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Mar 17 - 01:14 PM

Can't remember actually stating that Callaghan did say "Crisis, What crisis" - but it was how his return from the Guadeloupe Summit was remembered. "Crisis! What crisis?" was The Sun Headline, just the same as Thatcher never said "Gotcha", or "Rejoice, Rejoice" when the Belgrano went down and Blair never made any claim about Saddam being able to nuke Britain in 45 minutes. But loads believe they all did come out with those phrases - Power of the Press dear boy.

I think the actual words that Callaghan used when asked the following question by a reporter from the Evening Standard

"What is your general approach, in view of the mounting chaos in the country at the moment?"

WERE (Callaghan's reply):

"Well, that's a judgment that you are making. I promise you that if you look at it from outside, and perhaps you're taking rather a parochial view at the moment, I don't think that other people in the world would share the view that there is mounting chaos"

Totally delusional the country was going to hell in high gear. Fortunately Thatcher won the ensuing General Election and stopped the rot. The Conservatives stayed in power for the next 18 years until Blair won in 1997. Blair and Brown were handed a country with a very healthy economy as far as the Government were concerned and they then proceeded to ruin it over the next 13 years.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Mar 17 - 01:14 PM

Damn your 100 stealing shenanigans, Raggy! Gnomedotter #2 informs me it is going a bit Icy now. Should be a good night for star gazing. I have been reliably informed, by Teribus no less, that this is not a debating site anyway. It is a discussion site and, as such, is not bound by the rules of debate. If anyone wants to have a mass debate in public I suggest they try another site.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Mar 17 - 01:42 PM

Teribus now:
Can't remember actually stating that Callaghan did say "Crisis, What crisis"

Teribus but a few short hours ago:
..."reminds me of the 1970s and Callaghan's, "Crisis! What crisis?"

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Mar 17 - 01:43 PM

"Here is the link which proves you a liar,"
THat's the limk I put up snf it says exactly what I say it did - I even quoted Frankenstein whose article I put up earlier
It is pointless for Corbyn to lead the Labour Party if he doesn't totally change direction and reverse the damage th present set-up is doing to Britain - what I said and have ben saying from the beginning
Dio not call me a liar when you have lied throughout this and the Labour Party threads
You didn't link your Turner guote and you took it totally out of context - as I said - it says just the oppose, as did the Daniel Finklestein article
01 Mar 17 - 11:32 AM
You deliberately too the quote out of context and didn't link it.
"THEY ALL CAME FROM WITHIN LABOUR!"
From a Labour Party split in two - a right wing that wished to remain the same and a membership and Leader who wishes to change direction
All attacks on Corbyn come from the former - backed by interference from Israel who wish to offset BDS
Everything you have ever linked proves this
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Raggytash
Date: 06 Mar 17 - 01:50 PM

Steve, heaven forfend, you are not suggesting that Terikins that paragon of virtue is lying are you?

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Mar 17 - 02:03 PM

Would I do such a thing on such a beautiful and bracing early spring day such as this?

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Mar 17 - 02:15 PM

Have we finished with the Antisemitism Teribus?
Another clean pair of heels it seems
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: bobad
Date: 06 Mar 17 - 04:21 PM

And they try to pretend there is no pack.......lolololol!

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Mar 17 - 04:36 PM

I can see how it looks like a pack to those of a predatory and aggressive nature. To normal people it is a group of like minded individuals having a laugh.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Mar 17 - 05:52 PM

Well, boobs, if I'm in a pack at all, at least there's only one of me. I well remember that you used to be TWO members of YOUR pack! Anyway, those golden days of yours are over and spring is just round the corner. The daffs have taken a bashing by the weather but they're tough. It takes more than the odd snowflake to grind 'em down. Reminds me of my pack, actually. ❄️🔫

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Raggytash
Date: 06 Mar 17 - 06:03 PM

Raised some more funds for the Rescue Boat today with my Marmalade!

All good stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Mar 17 - 06:28 PM

Damned fine marmalade you make there, Raggytash. Mrs Steve made a new batch a few weeks ago. We are in soup season this end. I have some very good ham stock and will be making a large batch of Italian-style soup made with grains and pulses, starting with a soffritto of carrots, onions, celery and pancetta. I might go berserk and chuck in a chilli, or maybe a bit of 'njuda paste...

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Raggytash
Date: 06 Mar 17 - 06:40 PM

Carrots! Soffrito?

No no no

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Mar 17 - 06:47 PM

Ye gods, carrots in soffritto are a sine qua non! 🥕🥕🥕🥕🥕❗️❗️❗️

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Mar 17 - 07:13 PM

Whenever you throw up there is carrots in it whether you have eaten them or not.

According to Mrs Harding's kid that is...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Mar 17 - 07:25 PM

Jim Carroll - 06 Mar 17 - 02:15 PM

"Have we finished with the Antisemitism Teribus?"

Well not really Carroll anti-Semitism is racism according to Labour's NEC, Baroness Royall and newly created Baroness Chakrabarti.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Mar 17 - 07:29 PM

As to the "pack" thing chaps - any of you prepared to explain this:

Subject: RE: What Good Is Mudcat?
From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 04 Mar 17 - 06:40 PM

Who needs mods! We will fix it, Raggytash! See Labour thread!

Who's the "WE"??

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Mar 17 - 07:48 PM

The royal we, of course! And we are fixing it! Every time you come out with your pompous, arrogant nonsense and Keith comes out with his dismal anti-Labour crusade we reserve the right to either ignore you or ridicule you! Just like you do with us! Then we talk flowers, cookery, weather or scenery! This place needs to lighten up, and you and Keith and bobad, all four of you, 😂 need to GET LIVES! It's for your own good! High blood pressure at your age? Tut tut tut!

And I cannot be a pack member alongside a man who makes soffritto sans carrots! He'll be telling me next to use onions and garlic in the same dish! Arrrgh! Probably a closet Man U supporter!!

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Mar 17 - 08:07 PM

I gave up up-chucking decades ago, Dave. I hope you're not supping Yorkshire beer...

Carrots and celery go into loads of things in our house, chilli, cottage pie, all ragus, you name it. I like 'em as a veg, cut into batons and steamed with chopped sweetheart cabbage, then lashed with either butter or gravy. The trimmings and tough stalks go into the stock pot. I always scoff the celery heart with the inner stalks myself. Mrs Steve lets me. And for reasons I can't understand, I'm the only person in my family who lusts after the parson's nose, by far the best morsel on any roast chicken. It's the pope's nose on a turkey.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Mar 17 - 08:44 PM

the country was going to hell in high gear

While that might be how Teribus remembers 1979, it's not how I do. They were pretty good times, on the whole. There were a fair number of strikes, not excessively so, and the deficit that was hyped up as terrible was a fraction of what we live with today. And public services were vastly better.

Margaret Thatcher getting elected - well that could fairly be described as the country going to hell in a handcart. Or in a handbag.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Mar 17 - 09:02 PM

And if Callaghan had only gone to the country in the autumn of 1978.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 02:23 AM

1979 - "There were a fair number of strikes, not excessively so" - MGOH - the truth:

1: "22 January 1979 was the biggest individual day of strike action since the General Strike of 1926, and many workers stayed out indefinitely afterwards"

2: With the succession of strikes having been called and then won, many groups of workers began to take unofficial action – often without the consent or support of the union leaderships. Ambulance drivers began to take strike action in mid-January, and in parts of the country (London, West Midlands, Cardiff, Glasgow and the west of Scotland) their action included refusing to attend 999 emergency calls. In these areas, the Army was drafted in to provide a skeleton service. Ancillary hospital staff also went on strike. On 30 January, the Secretary of State for Social Services David Ennals announced that 1,100 of 2,300 NHS hospitals were only treating emergencies, that practically no ambulance service was operating normally, and that the ancillary health service workers were deciding which cases merited treatment. The media reported with scorn that cancer patients were being prevented from getting essential treatment.

Sorry Kevin, what services did you say were better?

3: In total in 1979, 29,474,000 working days were lost in industrial disputes, compared with 9,306,000 in 1978.

Hyped up Kevin?

As for Thatcher? - By 1983 changes made to trade union laws (most notably the regulation that unions had to hold a ballot among members before calling strikes) resulted in the number of strikes in the UK falling to their lowest level for 30 years. The General Election called in 1983 the Tories won by a landslide - wonder why Kevin, if things had been so peachy under Labour before?

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 03:23 AM

"Well not really Carroll anti-Semitism is racism "
And specifying your evidence is a part of the British justice system, apart from in your 1984 world
Feckin' Klanners - who'd have 'em?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 03:51 AM

I stand corrected Steve, I mis-remembered Sofrito which is I believe onion, garlic and tomato.

It wasn't a term I used years ago when I took my C&G's in Catering. The terminology we used was exclusively French. What you refer to as Soffritto was to me a Mirepoix

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 04:17 AM

You say you are not, but you clearly are afraid to discuss the current problems facing Labour.
Or else you have nothing to say, in which case no change there!

Jim,
Dio not call me a liar when you have lied throughout this and the Labour Party threads

If I have lied, quote one!
You always make claims about what I have said, but never supply the quotes because you are just lying.

Here are your recent lies about me again,

"I am not badmouthing Labour, "
Yes you are Keith

If that is not a lie, then find a quote!

the false accusations of Antisemitism and misogyny - it all came from you.

False or not, THEY ALL CAME FROM WITHIN LABOUR!
None came from me.
Again, if you are not lying, quote me!

As a right-winger, you have no interest in a putting right what has gone wrong in British politics

Untrue again! I am an ex-Labour voter.

Even your Mathew Turner quote (deliberately unlinked)

I said it was in today's Indie.
If that was not enough you could just google some text.
Nothing was "out of context. You lie again!

Here is the link which proves you a liar,
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-labour-party-plp-left-wing-mandatory-reselection-a7613466.html

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 04:29 AM

"If I have lied, quote one!"
Where to start Keith - from denying your "iml" teoy -blaming it on non existent experts to putting up out-of-context quotes.....
You are now incapable of distinguishing true from fiction
You haven't stopped "badmouthing" labour - from fictional claims of antisemitism and refusing to describe them
Blaming the Jews for a 'pact of silence'
Three or four threads ofr "badmouthing" to date
Tehe only truth you appear not to b ashamed of is that you voted Labour wehen it was headed by a war criminal
"None came from me"
You distorted what was happening and refused even to descuss what was actually being said
LABOUR HAS AT NO TIME SUGGESTED THAT THERE IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM OF ANTISEMITISM IN THE PARTY - THEY TREATED THE ACCUSATIONS SERIOUSLY - INVESTIGATED - NONE WAS FOUND - THEY POINTED OUT THAT ANTISEMITISM WAS NO MORE A PROBLEM THAN WITH ANY OTHER PARTY - END OF STORY
YOU CONTINUE TO CLAIM THAT LABOUR HAS ADMITTED THAT THERE IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM AFTER ALL THIS - AND YOU ARE NOT BADMOUTHING - GIVE IS A ***** BREAK
Finished feeding your trollism Keith - you are a disturbed, dishonest, obsessed individual.
Life really is too short and, as much as you would like it otherwise, it is not about you.
Back under your bridge
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 04:29 AM

Among Baroness Royall's recommendations:

""The Executive of the OULC, and other Labour Clubs, should examine the culture of their Club and take action to ensure that all those who wish to participate in meetings feel that there is a safe space in order to discuss and debate without discrimination."

"The Executive of the OULC, and all Labour Clubs, should have a clear line of reporting for incidents of antisemitism and other forms of racism, discrimination and harassment. This should include the ability of individual students to report incidents directly to the Executive Director of Governance of the Labour Party."

Substantive enough for you?

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 04:35 AM

"It wasn't a term I used years ago when I took my C&G's in Catering." - Raggy

Does Jim know about you dabbling in "Catering" Raggy - If memory serves me correctly he has a bit of a downer on people involved in "Catering".

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 04:39 AM

Should read "implant theory" of course
"Substantive enough for you?"
Of course not, but it obviously is for you rabid righters
If an accusation is made it should be examined, as was 'antisemitism'
None has been substantiated in either case - all that has is that Labour is divided into right and left factions and the former are throwing every dirty trick in the book at the latter - including accusations originating from a foreign power (didn't Trump get help from abroad too).
So far your little Klan gathering has refused to respond to the fact that a year ago this month the Tories were accused of Islamophobia - they have done sweet fuck all about those accusations, yet you stamp on a party that has taken all accusations seriously
Now which one is the honest, principled party.... let me see!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 04:46 AM

Jim,

"If I have lied, quote one!"
Where to start Keith -

Start with the nastiest and most blatant lie Jim.
Or just any lie at random.
If you are not lying, instead of claiming just quote!

Huff Post today,

"Stephen Hawking Calls Jeremy Corbyn A 'Disaster' For Labour Party
'I think he should step down for the sake of the party.'"

International Business Times today,

"Labour under Corbyn: only 35% of party members only 35% of party members think he can win next election.
But polling from YouGov and Election Data shows Corbyn is still popular among Labour members."
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/stephen-hawking-jeremy-corbyn_uk_58be6a75e4b09ab537d65856

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 04:50 AM

I worked in catering until the age of 25. As soon as I had passed the various City & Guilds a few years previously I realised it was a job for dead beats and no-hopers ........... I got out and went about improving my education, eventually studying at college in Oxford.

A bit better than frying eggs in the Navy.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 04:53 AM

I'm not bad mouthing Labour Miss, it was some big boys, not me Miss.

You posted it professor therefore YOU are responsible.

I refer you to my post of the 6th

From: Raggytash - PM
Date: 06 Mar 17 - 12:17 PM

"Please miss it wasn't me, that big boy said it.
You ****ing posted it on this site therefore you are responsible for it.
Gods teeth is really is like listening to a spoilt brat!!"

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 05:16 AM

Ah so you fried eggs in the Navy did you Raggy - must have been fun for you - but it was one of life's great joys that I never experienced.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 05:24 AM

Ahah, I see that our two favourite right-wing dogs are back in full flow gnawing at their well-gnawed, nay, thoroughly splintered bones! I see that Teribus, who's, always denied being a Thatcherite, is at it again defending her obnoxious anti-worker policies this time. She oversaw a huge hike in unemployment (having used that infamous poster showing a dole queue in order to get elected, a trick not lost on Farage) then, on ideological grounds, shut down British industry, devastated whole communities, dishonestly stuck hundreds of thousands of unemployed people on to incapacity benefit to make the unemployment figures look better and liberated the banks and City from regulation. Cor, that worked well didn't it! And had she been around today, Teribus, she'd have given you a damn good handbagging had you suggested to her that leaving the EU was a "good thing!" And, Teribus, I'll be bound if Jim doesn't enjoy cuisinary delights as much as the next person. He probably isn't referring to the output of a greasy guy in a ship's galley churning out reconstituted powdered egg/yellow peril! But there I go making baseless assumptions! I LOVE it! Still, same old same old, eh? You and Keith with your abject politics? Who needs it! Onward and upward, say I!

Raggytash, I spell it soffritto because most of me cookery is Italian when I'm straying away from Sunday roasts and bangers and mash. I think it's sofrito in Spanish and mirepoix in French. They're all variable feasts as far as I know, depending on the dish. I have a golden rule, that garlic never goes in there. Bacon only if the recipe calls for it. When I make tomato sauce it's the other way round. Nearly always garlic, never onions and I can rarely resist at least a touch of chilli.

Must give you my recipe for salmorejo some time. In the summer, mebbe!

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 05:25 AM

Actually my personal best for fried eggs was 550 in one hour.

Long time ago, about 1975.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 05:26 AM

"YouGov"
Run by a right-wing conservative blogger and a millionaire right-wing Conservative company director who was found guilty of expense fiddles in Parliament
Can you not come up with anything better than the opinions of rightists who have a vested interest in LABOUR STAYING IN THE HANDS OF THE RIGHT
I admire Stephen Hawiking greatly, but I wouldn't vote for him
"Start with the nastiest and most blatant lie Jim."
I don't lie Keith -as you have proven over and over again by denyinbg something you have said
You said it - you have denied it and then gone on to defend your sick theory
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 05:34 AM

That's a lot of fried eggs to eat at one sitting, Raggytash. Hope you took the fybogel at the same time...

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: bobad
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 06:36 AM

"Ostrichocracy", as coined by Al, is an apt descriptor of the pack.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 07:08 AM

It is decidedly spring like outside and even making Bradford look good :-) Daughters are now ensconced in their new digs in Haworth. A quick drive over the tops, through the odd little village of Goose Eye and down the humorously named Goose Eye Brow sees us in Haworth, one of the prettiest villages you could hope to see. And now with free parking :-) Visited the apothecaries shop where Bramwell Bronte used to buy his drugs last weekend. They wouldn't sell me any though. Looking forward to walking over there, not much more than 6 miles but some very steep bits, then visiting a pub or two before getting the steam train back to Keighley.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 07:28 AM

Well boobs is even indulging in alt-truth apropos of that exceptionally fine bird, the ostrich now! They NEVER hide their heads in the sand (a 2000-year-old lie now being perpetuated by the cabal - typical! Of course, they think that if you wait long enough, a lie becomes the truth!), they are aggressive when attacked, they are the fastest two-legged animal on earth and they can kill with a single kick! Hey, pack members, we should cordially accept the accolade of being dubbed an ostrichocracy! I LOVE it!! ❤️

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 07:30 AM

Grrr. Peeing down here AGAIN. You'll cop it later, Dave!

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 07:36 AM

Jim, again you claim lying by me, but again fail to produce a single quote of me doing it, as I do with all your lies.

Why is it so difficult for you Jim?
(Rhetorical question. Everyone knows why you can't do it. Ha ha ha.)

Re Yougov.
"YouGov is an international Internet-based market research firm, headquartered in the UK, with operations in Europe, North America, the Middle East and Asia-Pacific. YouGov was founded in the UK in May 2000 by Stephan Shakespeare and Nadhim Zahawi. In April 2005, YouGov became a public company listed on the Alternative Investment Market of the London Stock Exchange."

It is used by governments and is probably the best known and most reliable polling group.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 07:45 AM

Abject politics Shaw? What's the subject of the thread again?

Abject politics - Having to go cap in hand to the IMF was pretty abject, as was the "Winter of Discontent". Thatcher was far from being perfect but she was a damned sight better than her two predecessors. Directly due to action taken by her Government the country was in good shape when the Blair & Brown Duo took over and then we had - Afghanistan, Iraq, Pension raids and gold reserve sell offs until by 2010 they'd managed to completely screw the economy up again - that is f**kin' abject Shaw and you and your co-tossers cheered them on all the way.

By the bye, had Thatcher been around?

Thatcher EU in her own words

During Brexit she would have led the Leave campaign.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 07:45 AM

"but again fail to produce a single quote of me doing it"
How many times have I put up your "Don I do believe .. Implant" quote
How many times have you7 denied it How many times have you blamed somebody else and refused to quote them
How many times have you said you don't believe it - contradicting yourself
If yoiu didn't put it up, who did ?
You are an evil mess Keith
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 07:47 AM

Steve,
You and Keith with your abject politics? Who needs it

The fact remains that you can never actually argue against anything we actually say, with an actual quote.

I am sure that if you could, you would.

You are afraid to enter into debate.
Talking about flowers and the weather is safer.
Sad but true.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 07:52 AM

Jim,
"but again fail to produce a single quote of me doing it"
How many times have I put up your "Don I do believe .. Implant" quote

I did believe it. No lie.
All the deceit was with you, editing out all but a tiny bit of the short post, and ignoring the context of the posts that led to it.

So, you have to go back SIX YEARS and even then you can't find a lie.
It hardly shows me to be a prolific liar.
Not like you Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 08:04 AM

If anyone on this site is afraid to enter into debate it must be you professor.

You put up "quotes" and then when queried about them you say "wasn't me Miss, some big boys said it, I never said that someone else said that Miss, wasn't me Miss"

Pathetic.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 08:18 AM

Talking about flowers and the weather is safer.
Sad but true.

I wouldn't say safer. Plants and weather can be pretty dangerous as well. I would say it is a damned site pleasanter that engaging in so called debates on here that are nothing but trivial mental wranglings. There is nothing sad in trying to lift the tone of discussion. I have my rule now, thanks to GregF. Never enter a pissing contest with a skunk.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 08:20 AM

"I did believe it. No lie."
Step two - how many times have you blamed somebody else for making it and refused to produce a quote?
"So, you have to go back SIX YEARS and even then you can't find a lie."
You have lied consistently over this for all that time - not a bad lying
I have linked and named the site consistently and will do again
Your point throughout was that Muslims were potentially dangerous in regard to sexual abuse
MUSLIM PREJUDICE thread, if anybody would like to check
A quote from your sick contribution there
"Paedophilia is not endorsed, but the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) took a child bride."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 09:38 AM

Point missed again, Teribus! By abject politics I wasn't talking about the history of political parties' politics. I was talking about yours and Keef's! And Keith, you can't debate, won't debate, have never debated and will never debate. But you could apply to the Guinness Book of Records for typing the shortest possible sentence making the possible uses of "actually/actual!" I actually admired that in actual fact, no, I actually did!

Stopped peeing down again this end but all is mud. Have made a magisterial soup this morning, not for consumption until Thursday (the only thing to do with soups and casseroles). Am also set to make a curry for this evening using a Spice Tailor kit. I haven't mastered the art of curries from scratch, and the jars of Patak's, etc., are overcooked and too gloopy with a lot of sloppy onion and tommy purée, but the Spice Tailor ones are very good, if a bit pricey. A happy-ish medium.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 09:45 AM

Dangerous plants and weather, Dave? Ha! Bet you've never had to deal with an invasive stand of giant hogweed in the teeth of an approaching tornado!


No, neither have I, as it happens...


By the way, it's nearly ostrich breeding season. I don't suppose you seen Betty Swollox lately, have you, Dave...?

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 11:00 AM

No, Sorry, Steve. She never had her visa to visit Yorkshire renewed and with the political climate being what it is I suspect any such incursion would be dealt with using extreme prejudice. Not that there is any prejudice in Yorkshire culture of course. I was only quoting people that know better than me and you were telling lies about the weather. If it really was raining so hard how come you cannot come up with a single muddy footprint, eh? Eh? Eh? Just one. I win.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 12:35 PM

That is a baseless assertion, Dave. Go and hide your head in the sand. It's what we members of the ostrichocracy must do. You lose, you spittle-flecked ranter you! And prove it. Prove what, I hear you ask. Don't ask me. Just prove something or other. Yeah.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 02:31 PM

Jim, you knowingly lie about me AGAIN!

In that thread from 2011(!) I stated many times that religion was not an issue.
You know that because we have been there before and you have had the quotes.

You make the same old false, lying accusations and I just knock them down in the same old way.

You go back six years and still find no lie from me.
I produced a list of yours, with quotes, from this thread!

Steve,
I try to debate with you and Jim, but you just resort to personal attack and abuse every time.

My case is that Labour is in serious trouble with its leadership, and has had serious problems with anti-Semitism and misogyny.

I have backed my views with numerous quotes from prominent, senior Labour people.
You just deny without any evidence, and resort to trying to smear me over years old posts.

You are clearly afraid or incapable of entering into serious discussion, but prove me wrong why don't you?

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 02:40 PM

I refer you to my post of 08.04am

If anyone queries anything you post you claim you are only repeating what other people have supposedly said.

That is not debate, it is not even discussion.

Not only are you pathetic but you are a decitful fraud.

And no, I won't give you examples they are too numerous to cite. I know your normal cop out it won't work with me.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 04:26 PM

Just out of interest I believe a debate is a formal discussion with set rules about who says what and when. There are time limits and an independent panel or audience assess who made their points best and, therefore, won. That does not happen here.

A discussion is less formal and takes the form of people 'chatting'. Points are made, some are conceded, some compromise is arrived at and most people are happy with the outcome if not in full agreement. That does not happen here.

I am not at all sure that what goes on here can be classified as debate or discussion in any meaningful way so the best idea is for everyone to do their own thing unless the moderation team step in and take control. Which rarely happens.

Hope this helps

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 05:35 PM

I am clearly very bored with you, Keith. Very very very very bored indeed. I am so bored that the hole has gone right through. A two-foot length of three-by-two that has been attacked by a million-strong swarm of manic wood-boring beetles cannot be more bored than me. I am terribly, terribly bored. If it's any consolation, I'm just as bored by Teribus. I don't do favourites. I'm fair-minded like that, me. Hope this helps.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 08:08 PM

"Jim, you knowingly lie about me AGAIN!
How can I lie by quoting you?
"In that thread from 2011(!) I stated many times that religion was not an issue."
""Paedophilia is not endorsed, but the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) took a child bride.""
That was a spiteful attack on a religion that is not your own and is using that attack to persecute the believers - two birds with one petrol bomb
"You make the same old false, lying accusations and I just knock them down in the same old way."
Nope - I quote you - you call them lies
By accusing me of lying, are you actually saying you didn't write these things?
No answer is an admittance you did.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 05:53 AM

"Paedophilia is not endorsed, but the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) took a child bride."

Now we are obviously talking about Islam here. As someone who purports to be an expert in that particular religion to a degree whereby you set yourself up as it's defender Jim can you point out anything in that quote that is factually incorrect. Two things are mentioned:

1 - Islam does endorse or condone paedophilia - which is true it doesn't.

2 - The Prophet took a child bride - The girls name was Aisha she was six years old when Muhammad asked for her hand in marriage and she was nine years old when that marriage was consummated according to Islamic text.

Care to explain Jim how, given that both statements appear to be fact, the passage quoted above can in any way at all be considered as:

".....a spiteful attack on a religion that is not your own and is using that attack to persecute the believers>" - Jim Carroll

It is of course nothing of the sort, it is merely a statement of fact. Fact that for some reason you are conditioned to ignore, fact that you are not prepared to accept irrespective of any evidence that can be brought to show the truth of the matter.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 06:37 AM

both statements appear to be fact

We are talking about quotes from religious texts here aren't we? The same sort of facts that declare that the world was created in 7 days, that Jesus rose from the dead and Muhammad received his instructions from the Angel Gabriel?

If anyone thinks that any of these works can be described as factual we do have somewhat of an impasse.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 06:55 AM

Another version which indicates that Aisha was older:

"Muslim authors who calculate Aisha's age based on the more detailed information available about her sister Asma estimate that she was over thirteen and perhaps between seventeen and nineteen at the time of her marriage.[28] Muhammad Niknam Arabshahi, an Iranian Islamic scholar and historian, has considered six different approaches to determining Aisha'a age and concluded that she was engaged in her late teens.[29] Using the age of Fatimah as a reference point, the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement scholar Muhammad Ali has estimated that Aisha was over ten years old at the time of marriage and over fifteen at the time of its consummation.[30]"

From Wikipedia

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 07:02 AM

Don't get into interpretations of works of fantasy, Raggy. Unless it is to discuss who would win a fight between Wolverine and Batman. Now we are talking...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 07:18 AM

Nah Dave, just putting an alternative view.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: bobad
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 07:52 AM

Don't get into interpretations of works of fantasy

So your pal Carroll is getting all apoplectic and accusing others of having a "phobia" over a work of fantasy? I think you need to have a talk with him.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 08:41 AM

I think it needs to be a standard phrase...

(See other thread)

WTF are you on about poobad?

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 10:27 AM

Ah but Raggy strictly speaking there is only one book to those of the faith - the Quran.

And on marriage it states that girls become women eligible for marriage at the onset of puberty. Hell of a stink going on over in Bangladesh at the moment as they even seem to be dispensing with that restriction - Don't tell Jom but that was what we were going on about before - what is happening in Bangladesh is a "Bangladeshi culture" thing NOT a "Muslim culture" thing - they want to do this so that child rapists can avoid punishment by "saving the honour" of their victim by marrying them.

So while your alternative view is appreciated it proves nothing with regard to the Prophet and does nothing to alter the marriage bar set by the Quran - onset of puberty. The statement:

"Paedophilia is not endorsed, but the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) took a child bride."

Remains accurate and can in no way be described as any sort of "spiteful attack on a religion that is not your own and is using that attack to persecute the believers"

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 10:43 AM

It remains accurate only in as much as any such work of fantasy remains accurate. People will interpret and pick and chose what they see fit but, at the end of the day, it is all bollocks.

In my opinion.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 11:14 AM

A few minutes after the post that Jim refers to, I posted,

"Child marriage was accepted here until recently.
Adultery itself is unislamic.
But it happens. "

I recall that the mother of our own Henry Tudor conceived him when a child bride of 12, and Eleanor was only 10 when she married Edward 1st.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 11:17 AM

Irrelevant Gnome, the Hadith written immediately after the Prophet's death from testimony taken by those who knew the Prophet. The Hadith however are classified with a sort of quality control into:

sahih - Authentic

hasan - Good

da'if - Weak


Sahih al-Bukhari states that Aisha narratated that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).Sahih al-Bukhari, 7:62:64

Aisha had an important role in early Islamic history, both during Muhammad's life and after his death. In Sunni tradition, Aisha is thought to be scholarly and inquisitive. She contributed to the spread of Muhammad's message and served the Muslim community for 44 years after his death. She is also known for narrating 2210 hadiths, not just on matters related to the Prophet's private life, but also on topics such as inheritance, pilgrimage, and eschatology.

As commentator on the Prophet's private life it should come as no surprise whatsoever that her accounts would be considered by the faithful to be totally authentic and unimpeachable.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 11:22 AM

A few minutes earlier, I posted this,

"I agree that there is an issue about parenting and the security of children in care.
I hope that is not being offered as an excuse for the sexual abuse of children.
Anne Cryer gave a very plausible explanation of why these abusers are mostly from that community.
It is nothing to do with Islam. "

Jim quotes me very selectively to give a false impression of what I was saying.
Why did you not quote the whole post Jim?
Not helpful to your dishonest case.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 11:26 AM

Quite selective quotes there Terikins.

Not making a comment other than to say I'm not surprised.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 11:57 AM

Of course you refuse to comment - you are only here by your own admission because you - "Just like winding people up I suppose when I've got a little time to waste."

You are of no use nor ornament Raggy the forum would better off without you.

My quotes Raggy were no less selective than your own, the exception being of course that I stated why Aisha's written testimony should be regarded as "authentic" by the faithful.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 01:18 PM

So, some bits of the Koran are true while others are not? Pretty much like other peoples takes on the old and new testaments. Believe the bits that suit you, dismiss the ones you don't like. Hate to say it Teribus, but you seem to be learning from the boutique god botherers on here. Of course if you want to believe everything said by an 18 year old girl 1400 years ago, be my Guest but don't expect everyone to be so gullible.

Now, about this fortune I have inherited. I just need your bank details to transfer the funds...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 01:39 PM

"Why did you not quote the whole post Jim?"
It didn't need to be - it stands on its own Keith
If is wasn't part of your denigrating the Muslim people via your religion, why did you use it on a thread on whioch you made hundreds of postings doing just that
Once again it was a single handed effort by you to do so.
Each time I have quoted from that thread, I have given the title
Im sick and tired of you denying what you have put up
- you put it up to attack Muslims - it's what you are about
"The Prophet took a child bride "
Muhammad lived in the 7th century, - child marriages weer a common feature throughout the world at that time

""Aisha, betrothed to Muhammad at the age of 9 in 623
Margaret Beaufort, (age approximately 7) was married to John de la Pole (age 7) in 1450 by the arrangement John's father.[5] The marriage was annulled in 1453.
Joan of France, Duchess of Berry, betrothed in a wedding contract at age 8 days old, she was officially married at age 12 in 1476.
Anne de Mowbray, 8th Countess of Norfolk (age 6) was married to Richard of Shrewsbury, 1st Duke of York (age 4) in 1477. She died at age 10 and he, as one of the Princes in the Tower is believed to have been murdered at age 10.
Rukhmabai was married in India to her husband when she was 11 and he was 19.[9] After a lengthy court battle, the marriage was dissolved by an order from Queen Victoria and the publicity helped influence the passage of the Age of Consent Act, 1891 which outlawed child marriages across the British Empire.[contradictory]Janakiammal Iyengar was married at the age of 10 years to the Indian mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan.
Nujood Ali, an arranged marriage by her father to a 30-year-old man at age 10[12] in 2008.[13] Coverage of her self-presented application for divorce later that year led to the legal age of marriage in Yemen to be raised to 18.
Of course it was a "a spiteful attack on a religion that is not your own and is using that attack to persecute the believers.
This is the 21st century - Keith used his scummy statement to attack today's Muslim men and women, not those of over a millennium ago
You might as well use hanging, drawing and quartering to condemn British justice
The fact that Keith used it and you defended it make you the scummy racists that you are.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 03:28 PM

I don't know what happened in your life around November 2015 Terrikins, prior to that your posts could, on occasion, cause pause for thought.

Since that time you have become ever more belligerent, blustering and bullying.

This forum is not real life, if you consider it to be so you really are a sad bastard, like your friend, the professor.

I honestly do not care one iota what you think of me, I have far better things to do.

Bye bye ........... kissy kissy

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 04:45 PM

For someone who does give one iota for what I think about you, you seem to spend rather a great deal of time posting about it.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 05:18 PM

That's because we're concerned about you, Teribus. Let's face it, you're not getting any younger, grandad!

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 05:28 PM

Isn't it about time you left your childhood behind Steve?

Riveting tho' your interminable stories of mopeds and other childish pranks may be, this section of the forum is in the main inhabited by adults who like to discuss serious or controversial subjects without the threads being sabotaged by the antics of spoiled children......

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 06:12 PM

Well even your muse Teribus is way too embarrassed to defend you, akenaton. Do permit me to apprise you of a couple of points. "Mopeds" have been mentioned in one extremely recent post only. Hardly what you'd call "interminable." Second, hardly any person of relatively normal sanity levels would regard your alleged serious discussions of adult issues as in any remote way sensible. So our childish interventions, which are going to break you lot down in the end, serve a very good purpose. You are one of the reasons for the mutiny you now behold. You are the seed of your own destruction. In a few weeks' time, you and your ilk will be so pissed off with our childlike mucking about that you will want to quietly disappear. You simply can't win. You are yesterday's men. Your demise will be to the enduring benefit of this forum. You are poison, old chap, and it's not just me who thinks so. We are on your case. You're doomed!

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 07:19 PM

"For someone who does give one iota for what I think about you, you seem to spend rather a great deal of time posting about it."
Have we finished with your thousand year old evidence of Muslim degeneracy?
Seems to have gone the same way as that Tory enquiry into Islamophobia!!!
and ridden off into the SUNSET
1000 years - you couldn't make it up!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: The Sandman
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 01:24 AM

No ones mentioned Edward Heath, he was not a Muslim, but he had strong connections with a convicted paedophile, and allegedly boys went missing off his yacht.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 02:24 AM

Ah yes GSS but as everybody knows on this forum making baseless accusations and allegations is easy.

There's that non-gang "WE" again Shaw.

Might take time today as I have to stay in and wait for something to be delivered to trawl through how many times you have been publicly censured on this forum and told to mend your ways. I know for certain that it has never happened to me and I am pretty sure that it has never happened to Akenaton, or to Keith A.

The danger to any general discussion forum is very neatly stated by you Shaw here:

"So our childish interventions, which are going to break you lot down in the end, serve a very good purpose. You are one of the reasons for the mutiny you now behold. You are the seed of your own destruction. In a few weeks' time, you and your ilk will be so pissed off with our childlike mucking about that you will want to quietly disappear. You simply can't win. You are yesterday's men. Your demise will be to the enduring benefit of this forum. You are poison, old chap, and it's not just me who thinks so. We are on your case. You're doomed!"

Well your little gang have been trying your hardest with Keith A and Ake for at least six years now without result - so much for your "In a few weeks' time".

I am delighted that you describe your antics on this forum as "childlike", saves anyone else stating the obvious and cuts the ground clear out from under you completely should you ever challenge or deny that you are acting "childishly". The counter by the way to your "cunning Baldrick-like Plan" is that we just ignore you and let you all make complete and utter arses of yourselves. I am sure that in good time the Mods will catch on and clean up the threads by deleting your puerile, irrelevant, off-topic twaddle, or just move it onto a thread of its own. At least your little outburst quoted above serves as a good indication to those watching over this site that you are openly challenging the principle of "free speech" (Never popular with Union activists I know) upheld by this forum as a "collective" of stalkers and trolls - well done Shaw, tremendous "Own Goal" if ever there was one.

What has been achieved in a couple of current threads is that both yourself and Carroll have been exposed as proven hypocrites and liars, that Raggy, by his own admission, just posts to deliberately wind people up and that the Gnome is a "passive-aggressive" troll who was forced to ditch his GUEST, In good company posting ID.

As to being "doomed"? Tell me how are the "Musktwats" these days? Their departure from the scene has at least let in some fresh air.

I think I will mark that post of yours in my "Favourites" so that it can be recalled and reposted whenever required in the future.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 03:20 AM

As you well know, Teribus, because I have told you before, I voluntarily logged out of my Gnome ID for around 6 months to stop my posting in the BS section. You will note that all 'In good company' posts are after the ban on Guests posting in BS. I then decided to log back in. Again voluntarily (as you seemed to be missing me so much :-) ). Once more I invite you to corroborate that version with the moderation team if you like. As ever you put your own spin on events that is, what shall we say, slightly untruthful. Tsk, tsk.

Still, if it pleases you to think that you can force anyone to do anything I am happy to let you. I like doing good deeds and making people feel better about themselves is one of the best. You really do need to take it easier. I am sure all this bile cannot be doing your blood pressure any good at all.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Iains
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 03:23 AM

"So our childish interventions, which are going to break you lot down in the end, serve a very good purpose."

I suspect it is time you changed your medication Shaw. You are posting inane twaddle. I suppose it is different to interminable babblings concerning weeds, soups, guzzling wine and rambling.
If your culinary and guzzling skills match the quality of your postings, it may explain your fixation on bodily functions of a few days ago.
It does make a change from your cunningly crafted put downs, obviously honed by years of practise in the classroom where your hapless students could not retaliate.
If you cannot contribute to a thread you could consider simply shutting up. I am sure many would breathe a huge sigh of relief should your dribblings cease for a while.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Raggytash
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 03:34 AM

Cor, it must be really uncomfortable in those twisted knickers.

Incidentally, I did notice that you dismissed out of hand my post regarding the prophet Mohammed in favour of information you had previously gained.

I would suggest that this was for two reasons.

Firstly I posted it therefore you would attack it simply for that reason. Secondly it doesn't fit in with your agenda to show Islamic faith in a bad light.

Now I don't know for certain but I'm pretty sure that you are not an expert of the Quran and dismissing an different opinion about a subject you know little about indicates just how blinkered you really are.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 03:40 AM

"I suspect it is time you changed your medication Shaw. "
It seems a "cultural implant" with you people (there aren't many of you on this forum) that you are so shallowly nasty
And you have nothing to offer other than your nastiness.
Just read through your post(s) Iains - is that the way an adult behaves
I defy you to extract on serious statement, one adult argument, one piece of information from your invective filled postings.
You and Teribus have accused me and others of "ranting" - what the **** is it you are posting if it is not childishly infantile rants.
Is that what you think 'discussion' is.
I don't know if any of the Mudcat Forum Fairies are in the vicinity at the moment, but I suggest one of them has a quiet word in the ear of this troll.
Tweedldee Teribus, with his similar vaccuous insulting, is back in full throttle with invective again - perhaps somebody should speak to him too.
Any moron can call names - it takes a little thought to offer and respond to information
Where are your arguments - it can't be that difficult, surely!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 04:25 AM

Have you been taking lessons off Teribus, Iains? If so, may I suggest a different form of higher education. This one will only make you ill.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 05:04 AM

Jim,
If is wasn't part of your denigrating the Muslim people via your religion,

That is another of your nasty little lies about me Jim.
You can never give the quote because you always have to lie.
Unlike every member of your little gang I have never, ever denigrated any faith or anyone for their faith.

Muhammad lived in the 7th century, - child marriages weer a common feature throughout the world at that time

As I said at the time, but you carefully edited out, "Child marriage was accepted here until recently."

I gave two historical examples, one of which you repeated.
Here are two more, one from fiction and one from a "fairy story."
Romeo's Juliet was 12, and Joseph's Mary would have been under 16 and possibly as young as 12.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 05:33 AM

Gnome:
Your recollection is very different to mine GUEST, In good company posted to a thread above the line that requested WWI songs written at the time that were critical of the leadership. Your style was obvious so throughout I referred to you as "Gnome". You dropped your "Dave the Gnome" tag just about the same time that the "Musktwats" disappeared.

As for that thread Gnome? Result was that not one single song was found that criticised leadership, even although the scope with regard to period widened considerably. What did come out was a great deal of information and some very interesting perspectives on what songs were mentioned.

My blood pressure is fine Gnome and I would draw your attention to the fact that I am not part of the gang of children threatening doom and promising to drive people from this site, something that none of you have any right to threaten let alone attempt to do.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 05:39 AM

Yes, different recollections, Teribus. Yours is wrong. Seemples. I have given you the true reasons and whether you accept them or not, they remain true. Glad to hear that your blood pressure is fine.

I, for one, have never threatened to drive anyone away from anywhere. Far from it. I try my best to add sweetness and light onto otherwise obnoxious threads. Nice to see you joining in with the jocularity the other day. Apart from that, what value do you add?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 05:40 AM

"That is another of your nasty little lies about me Jim."
I quoted what you sais=d and the nasty way you said it
- a thousand year old example of how Muslim culture makes them rape children
No lies Keith - a straight quote
Why make it where you did if it wasn't denigrating a religion?
You are a nasty racist little man
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 05:55 AM

Good luck with your trawling, Bill. You're going to have to read every post from me and mods in controversial threads over the last ten years. Cor, get that right (you won't, but hey) and you'll have earned a PhD, mate! Take your time!

No-one has tried to force anyone to shut up here for the last six years, etc., Teribus. As for your bleat about free speech, if I want to talk about flowers in a Labour thread that's the right I'm exercising. Why, only yesterday you were rattling on about paedophilia in this very thread - one that's "supposed" to be about UK by-elections! I suspect it's a more a case of your wanting to define the terms of every conversation in your usual rather arrogant, control-freakery manner. If you ever stop posting here it'll be either (a) because you're dead, (b) because you've had the boot, (c) because we've seriously pissed you off with our "silly" inter-squabble pleasantries. No mere member will have forced you to desist. Maybe one day we can all start to talk sensibly and civilly. In the meantime I'd ask everyone reading this to consider whether or not they prefer the bonhomie to the negative, abusive and interminably repetitive squabbling. Well I'm pissed off big time with that myself. An attempt to shed a little light where there is presently only heat seems like one way to confront it. That's my theory and I'm sticking to it. Tenaciously. Just you wait and see.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 06:02 AM

"So our childish interventions, which are going to break you lot down in the end, serve a very good purpose."

I suspect it is time you changed your medication Shaw. You are posting inane twaddle. I suppose it is different to interminable babblings concerning weeds, soups, guzzling wine and rambling.
If your culinary and guzzling skills match the quality of your postings, it may explain your fixation on bodily functions of a few days ago.
It does make a change from your cunningly crafted put downs, obviously honed by years of practise in the classroom where your hapless students could not retaliate.
If you cannot contribute to a thread you could consider simply shutting up. I am sure many would breathe a huge sigh of relief should your dribblings cease for a while.

Just look at this resentful, spiteful, hate-filled little polemic. You'd think the bloke actually knew me! Thanks for helping to reinforce what I said in my last post!

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 06:14 AM

Jim,
I quoted what you sais=d and the nasty way you said it
- a thousand year old example of how Muslim culture makes them rape children

Only because you carefully edited out the bit where I reiterated that it was nothing to do with religion, and the bit you did quote did not denigrate any religion.
You people denigrate religion all the time!

Why make it where you did if it wasn't denigrating a religion?

You mean in that thread where I stated repeatedly that religion was not an issue?

You can not make a case against me on this without lying, because I am no racist and have never denigrated any religion.
Unlike you and all your little gang.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: The Sandman
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 06:27 AM

Teribus, an example of two paedophiles who were not muslims with strong connections to Heath, jimmy saville and king cornet were convicted paedophiles.
Jimmy Savile's nephew today claimed a 14-year-old friend was abused by Sir Edward Heath as police revealed they are investigating his links to the DJ and a paedophile ice cream mogul.
Guy Marsden, who was taken to 'paedophile parties' by his uncle from the age of 13, says the alleged attack happened in central London in the 1970s.
It came as North Yorkshire Police detectives started examining Sir Edward Heath's relationship with Jimmy Savile and his paedophile friend Peter Jaconelli, who was known as 'King Cornet'.
A new photo has emerged of Heath with Jaconelli, the 21-stone former mayor of Scarborough who made a fortune in ice cream but also used his power to lure in children, abusing them unhindered for 40 years.
'King Cornet' would also crawl the streets with Savile in his pink Rolls Royce looking for boys to abuse and the pair were believed to be at the head of a nine-strong paedophile ring.
Jaconelli even appeared on Jim'll Fix it with his close friend.
Today Savile's nephew strengthened calls for a full investigation after he claimed a friend was abuse by Ted Heath.
He told the Evening Standard: 'The four of us would arrive at these parties together, then my friend would disappear. He'd be gone for a while, led away by a man, then he'd be back. I knew there was stuff going on but didn't know the extent of it until much later.
'I am in touch with my friend and he has told me what they did to him and it's just horrific, absolutely unbelievable stuff. He would sometimes leave the house we were at then get driven round to some other place. Hours later he'd be back. At that time we never really asked where he had been.
'He later told us that Ted Heath was an abuser but that he didn't know who he was at the time. He said it was a year after the abuse took place that he was watching TV and recognised him.'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3186719/Police-probing-links-Ted-Heath-Jimmy-Savile-paedophile-ice-cream-mogul-known-King-Cornet.html#ixzz4aoyUMQ00
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Raggytash
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 06:38 AM

Good Soldier Schweik, I mentioned Saville and Jaconelli some time ago and linked to a article on The North Yorks Enquirer website.

Both Teri and the professor failed to comment on my post.

One cannot help but wonder why.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 06:43 AM

200! :-D

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 06:58 AM

When I see the daffs swaying in the breeze in me garden it reminds of of that Wordsworth poem we were forced to learn for 'O' Level Eng Lit.

"I wandered lonely as a cloud..."

"Lonely?" The clouds round HERE aren't lonely! There are HUNDREDS of 'em! I've been to t'Lakes an' all where he wrote it, and the clouds weren't lonely there either! Eejit!

Just thought I'd mention it as there's nowt much else happening in this thread...

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 07:08 AM

Of course they are wrong from your perspective Gnome - fact was you got "outed" using a GUEST identity - Or did you perchance post as "Dave the Gnome" stating that you were declutching your "cookie" and posting as GUEST, In good company - No of course you didn't - don't know what you call it, I call it underhand and downright sneaky.

The big change when you floated back in a Dave the Gnome was your "passive-aggressive" tone picked up on by both Bobad and myself.

As to your trying your best "..... to add sweetness and light onto otherwise obnoxious threads" care to explain where that was evident in your posts to Iains?

You are a Troll Gnome plain and simple, a Troll with little or nothing to say of any consequence on anything. But still there are a couple of things you have brought to the party the mental image of you scrambling about the hills and now you on a bicycle, those images will be with me every time you post.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Iains
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 07:11 AM

Dthe G. what on earth are you on about?

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 07:15 AM

Er, before you attack Dave for that, Bill, invoking bobad in the proceedings to boot, I think you'd better have a little word in bobad's shell-like too about his own doings before the rule change. I'm sure you didn't really mean to overlook it... 😂

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 07:42 AM

Attack? What attack, Steve? An attack can cause harm. Teribus can do nothing of the sort :-)

Or did you perchance post as "Dave the Gnome" stating that you were declutching your "cookie" and posting as GUEST, In good company

Yes I did as it happens. To a moderator before I logged off :-) You have seen the advice in the FAQ about not making a big fuss when logging off haven't you? If you would like to get them involved please feel free. I am sure they would appreciate wasting even more time on your nonsense.

And you know the advice that is given about trolls don't you Teribus. Ignore them. If you feel I am such then I would be quite happy if you did so. In fact, to be ignored by you would be a bonus :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 08:04 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome - PM
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 01:09 PM

Damn! I knew I must have been ripped off paying £400 for it. I should have just nicked one like, presumably, your sister did.

Another example of you "adding sweetness and light" Gnome? Wonder what it is about Labour Party supporters on this forum they seem to have a propensity for telling lies very, very badly.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 08:15 AM

Just replying in kind, Teribus. Just replying in kind. Have you ever thought of writing a follow up to 'How to win friends and influence people' by any chance? If so, I strongly advise you not to bother...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Raggytash
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 08:28 AM

The bugger is not ignoring you, is he Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 08:29 AM

Chance would be a fine thing :-)

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 10:45 AM

GSS, I suspect that Teribus like me is reluctant to embark on a discussion about child sexual abuse in general, and I can't imagine anything that any of us would disagree on anyway.

I have always acknowledged from the time of the 2011 thread that no demographic is over represented in child sexual abuse except for that one specific type of abuse.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Raggytash
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 11:03 AM

Oy !!

Put those bloody goalposts down !

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 11:13 AM

"that no demographic is over represented in child sexual abuse"
Not true - the vasy majority of paeophilic incidents take place within the family
"Survivors of sexual assault by rape or penetration reported that the perpetrator was most likely to be a friend or acquaintance (30%) or other family member (26%). For other types of sexual assault, the perpetrator was most likely to be a stranger (42%). For sexual assault by rape or penetration, male victims (15%) were three times more likely than females (4%) to report that they had been abused by a person in a position of trust or authority, such as a teacher, doctor, carer or youth worker."
"except for that one specific type of abuse."
Which had been identifies as being a result of surrounding circumstances and had been rejected by magistrates, police and social workers as a cultural issue.
Where does your thousand year old marriage and your "cultural implant" fit into all this Keith?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 12:07 PM

Jim:
Not true - the vasy majority of paeophilic incidents take place within the family
"Survivors of sexual assault by rape or penetration reported that the perpetrator was most likely to be a friend or acquaintance (30%) or other family member (26%). For other types of sexual assault, the perpetrator was most likely to be a stranger (42%).
Interesting statistics. But they don't agree with your statement. How do you get "vast majority" from 26%? (or even 'vasy majority')?

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Raggytash
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 12:15 PM

30 plus 26 Nigel

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 02:28 PM

Wrong again Raggy, better stick to saying S.F.A.

By the way WTF was the name of this college you went to in Oxford and was that "the" Oxford in England? Whoever sent you there should apply for an effin' refund.

Normal categorisations of personal relationships:

Family (blood relations) - it is usual under normal circumstances that you are acquainted with them and that you are on friendly terms with them, but this may not always be the case.

Friends - outwith the family group and personally selected.

Acquaintances - People you happen to know slightly in passing who are not friends.

Perfect Strangers - You don't know them from Adam.

So like you Jom was wrong with his - "the vasy majority of paeophilic incidents take place within the family" - Jim

The within the family bit excludes friends, excludes acquaintances and excludes perfect strangers so according to the statistics supplied that accounts for 26% of the total - so as Nigel pointed out not a "vasy" majority at all.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 02:58 PM

How do you get "vast majority" from 26%? (or even 'vasy majority')?"
The one single identifiable group is family members -
Friends and acquaintances could be from anywhere - teachers, clergymen, neighbours, schoolmates and their parents, fellow scouts and guides, sports instructors......
Family members make up an identifiable quarter.
Leaving the rest as opportunistic strangers
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Raggytash
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 03:29 PM

PEDANT ALERT

When a man who abuses a female, or perhaps less commonly, a woman a abuses a male, common parlance indicates that a friend or an acquaintance perhaps an "uncle" (eg your dads best mate) is part of the family.

Jim understands this, I understand this.

It is only uneducated idiots who would prefer to castigate certain sections of our society, in order to inforce their own prejudice opinion, that do not understand this.

Racist, bigoted louts to a man. You fit that bill very well Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 04:32 PM

I had a road to Damascus moment some time back, Raggy. Hence the

Different morality
Different language
Different planet

Comment I make.

What it boils down to is that some members of this little society do not, can not or will not understand others. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with anyone. They is just something blocking normal communications and once you realise this you will realise that there is no point even trying. Keith puts it down do me (and by association presumanly you, Steve and Jim) having no morals and being shit. I guess Teribus will put it down to something similar and go on about education while ake will enter his own dream world where liberal is a bad thing, fascism is good and socialist means something entirely different to anyone else.

I would not put it down to any of that nor blame any of the 'opposition' or lay the fault at their door. I would simply say that there is a major and unresolvable communications break down. I don't know why and I don't know how to fix it. Believe me, I have tried. As there is no point in trying to communicate complex ideas between all us 'usual suspects' we may as well just talk about anything.

Now, what other bikes did you have? I passed my test on the Lambretta and gave up being a 'mod'. Traded it in for a Triumph T110. Which was crap. That went in a straight swap for a Honda CB400 which, in 1971, no one wanted. I fell in love with Honda at that point and had 2 more. A CD125 and the afore mentioned CX500. I doubt if I will bike again but if I do I may revert to parka and aviator shades and get a Vespa GTV300. But I will probably bottle out spend the money on either a MGTF or a Triumph TR7. Luckily, being a gnome, I can still get in and out of something so low :-) Although I admit I did struggle with my mate's Lotus Elise!

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Raggytash
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 05:05 PM

In 1975 I bought a Suzuki T250J Hustler. I bored it out to 305cc added racing tank, clip on's and rear sets. Proper little racing bike. Fantastic in a straight line but almost lethal on corners.

I took it to the TT races and on "mad sunday" tonked it round the circuit riding like a maniac. Really riding like a maniac.

Over the 36 mile course I averaged 56mph, Mick Grant that year averaged 112.96mph. Double my speed plus a touch.

The lap record is now 133.962mph. How they achieve that is beyond my comprehension.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 05:44 PM

Never been a motorbike person. No car until Mrs Steve and I got hitched in 1976, though she had a Morris Minor called Boris. Then a Morris Minor called Mildred, then a Dolomite 1850 (wolf in sheep's clothing), then a Toyota Carina estate which never broke down but which was a rusty bucket, then a Cavalier Estate which had a weird habit of suddenly cutting out, refusing to start for anything between ten minutes and 24 hours, then behaving perfectly normally again (I cured it by swapping the distributor), then a nippy little Vauxhall Nova in faecal brown, then a Daewoo Nexia (cheap car, expensive mistake - cambelt snapped tens of thousands of miles prematurely and wrecked the engine), then a nice little Peugeot 106 disel, then a beaten-up old Fiesta, now a Focus 1.6TCDi, the only new car we ever bought - great car. Mrs Steve has a 10-year-old MX5 which I love to pieces. Hairdresser's car my arse!   

Apropos of this below-line forum's ethos, or lack of it, the pattern is that we soft-centred pinko sandal-wearing bearded PC apologist lefties tend to simply react. Even over-react. It's rare that we go into attack-instigating mode. That's the territory of Teribus, Keith and the minnow Iains. I exclude bobad because he never actually argues any point and simply snipes. I also exclude akenaton because he a sort of (French accent, please...) "idiot non-savant" around here. This little cabal come here with an agenda, and having an agenda means a complete inability to discuss in a measured way. That's why I've decided to exercise my free speech (are you listening, Bill?) by ignoring/taking the mick out of/making fun of these blokes. What else is there to do?

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 07:53 PM

"perhaps an "uncle" (eg your dads best mate) is part of the family." - University Rag

Ehmmm I hate to point this out to you Raggy. The fact that you and Jom accept and sometimes might offer up sloppy, slapdash interpretations to support your case - those who compiled the Statistics that Jom chose to quote DO NOT. It is their job to name and identify relevant categories - and to them and the police who would investigate the crime - "your dad's best mate" would NOT be classified, or regarded as being part of the family.

So only 26% of cases involve a family member - no sort of majority at all.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 08:10 PM

Very, very tired stuff, Bill. I'm warning you now, nay, threatening you. Carry on like this and I'm going to regale you mercilessly with the botanical names of each and every variety of narcissus I have in my garden. And it's a big garden. And if that doesn't work, be advised: I have tulips...

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Mar 17 - 02:03 AM

It's spring again, I'll bring again Tulips from Amsterdam !

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Mar 17 - 02:17 AM

Feel free to Shaw - won't bother me at all.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Mar 17 - 02:39 AM

When my daughters hamster shuffled off her mortal coil on new years eve it was rather upsetting but a few days later we buried her in the garden. Shortly after that I was putting in some tulip bulbs and was very tempted to put some on the hamsters final resting place so, when the grew, I could say something about tulips from Hamsterjam.

But I decided against it on the grounds of taste.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Mar 17 - 02:52 AM

What I find strange is the silence here lately on the abolition of the House of Lords.

It used to act as a reasonably independent body to scrutinise Govt policy, but over the last thirty years it has been stuffed with political cronies and failed politicians, making it if anything more corrupt than the shower who inhabit the commons.

I wonder why the pro establishment "socialist" crowd here have fallen silent?

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Mar 17 - 03:18 AM

Good to see you getting into the spirit of things as well, ake. The abolition of the House of Lords has as much to do with the latest by-elections as bikes, flowers and hamsters I suppose but you do need to use your imagination a bit more.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Iains
Date: 10 Mar 17 - 03:21 AM

" It's rare that we go into attack-instigating mode."
Pull the other one Stevie boy!
Here are some examples of your non attack instigating mode:-

1)Have another ten pints, Bill. Hope your head's ok in the morning!

2)Now listen up for once, cloth-ears. I shall say this only twenty more times (my calculation as to how many times I'll have to say it before it finally sinks into whatever pile of poo passes for your brainbox

3)Now toddle off and go and pester someone else

4)He and bobad are two cheeks of the same sorry arse. No substance, no debating skills, no-nothing trolls. Here for the fight only. Even Keith and Teribus aren't of that ilk. An arse, what's more, that even an Asda George underpant, were it sentient, would rebel against. Ignore 'em

These are typical nasty Shaw responses just from one thread.
You make a point of talking down and insulting everyone that disagrees with you, accompanied by your own brand of arrogance. You and the rest of the pack all come out braying in unison. I suggest you collectively pull the stone back over your head and remain with the rest of the low life. None of you are very nice people and you destroy many threads with your combatitive behaviour.

attack the person
attack the grammer.
attack the spelling
use pathetic adjectives to further you arguments like childish, newbie, minnow.

Squeal like stuck pigs when the same tactics are used against you.

You treat this forum as your own personal fiefdom, where you set the rules.

If you do not agree with the content of the thread, no one is forcing you to contribute and your latest fixation on mopeds merely demonstrates how pathetic you are.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Mar 17 - 03:52 AM

"What I find strange is the silence here lately on the abolition of the House of Lords."
A;lmost as strange as your total refusal to respond to both the actions of Trump and the obvious detrimental effects of Brexit
You have refused to comment on both.
I have no time whatever for the medieval establishment that is The House of Lords, but, like the security services in the US, when they do happen to work to our advantage, you can only welcome their actions as crumbs from he rich man's table
Brexit is not only an economic and political mess, for Britain and also for its near neighbours - here in Ireland, it stands to totally wreck the peace process that has been struggling to help heal the scars over the last few decades.
Scotland voted against it, so an entire National Group within the British Isles has had something it does not want and economicaly, most certainly does not need, foisted upon it by little Englanders who have the strange idea that it can stand on its own two feet with no manufacturing industries, an accelerating gap between those who have and those who have less and less every day.
As far as the Lords are concerned, they are going by the book and demanding that any exit from Europe is done by the book.
Brexit was a populist vote instigated by racist scum like Ukip playing on the xenophobic fears and prejudices of the British people - "get rid of the foreigners and all your problems will be solved."
The Nazis of Germany were elected by such populism - had they been opposed six million Jews would not have been exterminated.
It is quite likely that France, Holland, and several other countries will elect fascist administrations in the near future with the help of the combined encouragement of Brexit and the goose-stepper in the White House.
Both will have achieved in a matter of months what Hitler failed to do over a decade and a half - let the fascist genii out of its bottle.
How about replying replying to the consequences of this stupid, flag-wagging decision Ake, instead of whingeing every time somebody put a legal obstacle in the way of your frightening Brave New World
People like you really do need top be stopped in your gallop - you stand to fuck up the future with your prejudices and hatreds
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Mar 17 - 04:05 AM

Iains. I am sure Steve can speak for himself but the thing that strikes me most about your litany of so called attacks is that each and every one is a response. Now, I guess you would like to be included in the cabal that I refer to as speaking a different language but before you commit yourself maybe you would like to consider what is meant by 'attack instigating mode'. Maybe it means that an attack is instigated from scratch rather than as a defense to another attack? Is that so difficult to understand?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Mar 17 - 04:20 AM

Iains, Before you criticise others TOO much perhaps you could look at some of your own recent posts.

"DtG what on earth are you on about"

"Hey Raggytash Isiah 5.21"

"Jimmie Matthew 7:3-5 King James Version"

"An interesting by some to my post of 28th Feb 17-11.44am Matthew 7.16"

"DtheG Glad you enjoyed the pancakes. I like mine with maple syrup"

"D THE G To be associated with a mythical gang is far superior to being in a pack of curs doncha think?"

"............ either put up or shut up you silly little man"

"I assume arrogant was the next word out of the box after insecure. If you want to insult people each time you post Jimmy try and ring the changes"

"................ better trade your sandals for some hiking boots, the next socialist party is way over the horizon"

"So all in all, no surprises, is Labour sinking to the bottom of the swamp"

Not exactly edifying are they.

We're all guilty to a greater or lesser degree and in your defence you do post some interesting comments on occasion, but you cannot really criticise others when you do the same thing yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Iains
Date: 10 Mar 17 - 05:48 AM

Raggytash.

I would be more than happy to back off when I see a token effort in the same direction by others. Other points of view will inevitably exist, and everyone will try to defend their corner. This can be done without constantly belittling the opposition. Destroy the argument, not the person.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 10 Mar 17 - 05:54 AM

Jim:
Brexit . . . Scotland voted against it, so an entire National Group within the British Isles has had something it does not want
It's not 'an entire National Group'. Remain had a majority in Scotland. Others in Scotland voted to leave. The majority does not mean the same as an entire national group.

If you can totally ignore those who voted to leave in Scotland, then, by a similar method, the argument could be made that Britain, as a national group voted Leave. And this includes the Scots.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Mar 17 - 06:06 AM

"The majority does not mean the same as an entire national group"
No it doesn't Nigel - I stand corrected - a bad choice of words
But as British democracy stands at present, the Brexit vote was undemocratic in forcing a minority decision on the Scots people.
A true indication of how the Scots feel about Brexit will hopefully be sought by Scotland voting for Independence
One of the things Brexit has achieved is the possible break-up of the United Kingdom
As far as how Brexit is enacted, it has to be subject to existing law - a populist-arrived at decision cannot over-ride that
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Mar 17 - 06:13 AM

Cheers, Dave and Raggytash, but I never feel the urgent need to respond to Iains the forum buffoon. One fine day we may just get an unvarnished objective opinion from him on something or other, unspiced with bitterness and jealousy (he does have plenty to be jealous of, let's face it). Definitely not worth taking on his inanities. Rudeness seasoned with ignorance.

Nigel, no-one had a majority for anything in that disastrous referendum. Well over a quarter of the electorate didn't vote and almost half the ones who did voted remain. 38% of the electorate are leading us to hell in a handcart. If I had a quid for every time I've screamed at the telly when some dickhead has declared that the "people have spoken," etc., I'd be able to afford the spending-money euros for my next trip to Italy. At the moment I'd be lucky to get a euro for a quid!

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 10 Mar 17 - 06:57 AM

Of those who chose to vote the majority chose to leave the EU.
Until, and unless, the UK changes to a system where voting is compulsory, the only results that count are the results from those who choose to vote.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Mar 17 - 07:11 AM

Yes I know that, Nigel, but claiming that "the people have spoken" when 62% of "the people" either didn't speak at all or spoke the other way is a ploy, no more than that. People who don't vote don't forfeit their place in our democracy, you know. They still pay their taxes. For one thing, you don't know why some people didn't vote and it's very dodgy to make any assumptions, especially when expressed pejoratively, as Teribus has done. And, let's face it, "the people" only "spoke" to advise the government what to do. The bottom line is that it would be suicidal for the government to countermand the referendum vote - but not illegal. There was no majority of the electorate for either remain or leave. Some crowing brexiteers seem to be forgetting that. Hence the situation in Scotland.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Mar 17 - 07:24 AM

"Of those who chose to vote the majority chose to leave the EU."
But iw=s as not the majority of the people - which is what Steve said,
There's another thread running at present on how people feel about voting and politics
At present in Britain, those voting in elections are around 665; only 72% votd in the Brexxit referendum
That not only calls into question any decision taken at election time, but the the political system.
Disillusionment is the mother of extremism.
The voting system will never be changed while it favours those in power.
We have a PR system in Ireland, not perfect by any means, but if forces those in power to listen to things that concern people and, to a degree, respond to them
The privatisation ow water (suits some people, I know), is still being fought over several years after its introduction, thanks to the Irish people taking to the streets in vast numbers - it wouldn't happen back home.
Millions of people tok to the streets opposing Blair's WMD adventure - he went ahead and narrowly avoided being tried as a war criminal
Who was in the right?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 10 Mar 17 - 08:00 AM

We have a PR system in Ireland, not perfect by any means, but if forces those in power to listen to things that concern people and, to a degree, respond to them
We have a system in Britain that does that as well. After decades of no-one listening to the calls to change or leave the EU (mainly ignored because both of the main parliamentary parties were in favour of staying) people started voting for UKIP.
Enough did this that the only way the conservatives could avoid losing masses of votes was to promise a referendum.
The result of the referendum is that we are leaving the EU.
The populace has spoken. A portion of them spoke to leave, a smaller portion spoke to remain. Such is democracy. Of those who chose not to speak we can make no valid assumptions. The split may have followed that of those that voted, or it may have been noticeably different, in either direction. Whichever is the case, it matters not. They had the chance to vote & chose not to.
Of those that voted, the majority were in favour of leaving the EU.

Scotland had earlier voted decisively to remain part of the UK, and as such were included in this, not as a separate nation, but as part of the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Iains
Date: 10 Mar 17 - 08:29 AM

Those that have a vote and choose not to use it have no right to complain if the outcome is not what they desired. The right to vote underpins democracy. No arguing over the percentages alters the fact that the majority wins. That is the majority that could be bothered to vote. Those that for whatever reason choose not to vote have zero influence on the outcome. It is as though they do not exist.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Mar 17 - 08:30 AM

"We have a system in Britain that does that as well."
No "we" haven't (I live in Ireland but I was born in Britain and spent my life there up to retirement
Ther was at no time in my lifetime, calls for Britain to leave the E.U. - no letters of protest in the press, no street demonstrations, no public meetings calling for Brtian to leave.... not a peep, other than the viciouness of nationalist parties like Ukip and the BNP
It has always been a ploy of rightist organisations to claim they are 'the voice of the people'
The referendum was run, not on a basis of a discussion of the consequences as a whole - many politicians warned of the social consequences and the economists stamped on the idea firmly, pointing out that the economy needed stability and not the uncertainty of such a momentous move.
it was sold on the fag-waving idea of standing "on our own two feet" and getting rid of "parasitic emigrants" - that was Ukip's policy summed up perfectly in the poster showing Farage standing in front of hordes of obvious foreigners.
The first reactions after the vote was announced was reported incidents of immigrants being asked when they were going home and a sharp rise in racist incidents.
THe economic forecasts are nor beginning to come home to roost - an unstable economy which is forecast to take a decade to steady up, a budget aimed at workers - notably the self-employed, the potential loss of what remains of our industry to foreign firms (Vauxhall is the first, but not the last) - and a situation where the unemployed of Britain will no longer be able to freely move in Europe to seek work.
Export firms are facing the return to closed frontiers, longer delays and losses in custom and profit.
All for the luxury of keeping out the people who have added enormously to both our economy and our culture
Sad and sick
Scotland's decision to remain in The U.K. was now writ in stone and stands to be reversed; Northern Ireland is facing several major setbacks - a backward step for the Peace Process, a return to closed borders, and severe economic difficulties
All brought about by a slim majority of a decision taken by 70% of the British electorate
One wonders how, knowing what we now know, they would vote now.
I'm not a betting man but I'd certainly put a fair amount on that particular horse.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Mar 17 - 08:34 AM

Nigel, A small majority of people who voted at the referendum voted to leave. The people who voted to remain have been told by some on here to "deal with it"

However in Scotland the majority voted to remain. Quite clear and straight forward.

The independence vote was an entirely separate issue and we cannot know how that vote would have panned out if the Scottish people knew at the time that the UK would leave the EU.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Mar 17 - 08:55 AM

"The populace has spoken."

Well no-one under 18 "spoke" (approximately fourteen million of 'em, all of whom are going to be severely affected for far longer than the rest of us). and 28% of those over 18 did not "speak." Just about half of the populace in all "spoke" so just over a quarter of the "populace" are taking us out of the EU. Doesn't exactly look like "the populace have spoken" very decisively, does it?

Iains, though your silly post doesn't deserve a response, let me repeat. First, you do not know why individuals didn't vote. It could be that a large number were undecided and concluded that the most honest thing to do was to abstain. Are you seriously suggesting that those people have lost the right to have a say? Second, they still pay their taxes. In our system, like it or lump it, paying your taxes entitles you to play whatever part, or no part at all, in the democratic debate in this country, including using your vote. In my time I've abstained from voting in elections for local councillors (they are not generally affiliated to parties round here) or for officials in my trade union for the simple reason that I didn't know the candidates sufficiently well. It is not for you to prejudge people for not voting. It could well be that an honest abstainer in the referendum made a far more moral decision than some lout who voted because he thought it would keep Johnny Foreigner out. Think before you post.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 10 Mar 17 - 09:02 AM

Jim:
Ther was at no time in my lifetime, calls for Britain to leave the E.U. -
The BBC Say differently.

it was sold on the fag-waving idea of standing "on our own two feet" Homophobia as well now?

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Mar 17 - 09:19 AM

Nigel -
This was your statement
"After decades of no-one listening to the calls to change or leave the EU (mainly ignored because both of the main parliamentary parties were in favour of staying)"
The list you produced was of calls by the main political parties
Your implication as that the British people were not being listened to by "the main political parties"
You really need to make up your mind on this one.
I have listed the effects that Brexit has already had over eight months since the decision was taken and has not even started to be negotiated, as well as the future implications - were they accurate or not?
Something else you need to make up your mind on.
Not one of you has acknowledged the racist content of the campaign and what has happened so far
I won't begin to list the consequences of Fascist groups in Europe taking the cue from the Brexit campaign in order to gain power in countries like France, Holland... and elsewhere
Was listening to a very depressing interview with a Hungarian extremist this morning
I repeat what I said earlier - Brexit and Trump have achieved in a matter of months what Hitler failed to do in a decade and a half
I really didn't expect to see a repetition of this level of politics in my lifetime
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Mar 17 - 09:32 AM

Well, couple of issues with your post Iains.

Firstly, many of the people who did not vote still pay their taxes to a government who they elected and expect to do the job they were elected to do. They have every right to complain and every right to withhold their vote should they decide that that should not have to do to their highly paid MPs job for them.

Secondly, you will find that the very people on here who use 'the majority has won so stop whinging' argument are the same people who reckon Donald Trump won a majority vote and should therefore be in the White House. He did not. The popular vote went against him. Not saying you are in that camp but this is the type of hypocrisy that goes on.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Mar 17 - 09:57 AM

When Jim said fag-waving, I thought he meant Farage, who waves fags all the time. Yanks, a fag this end means a cigarette. 🤡

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Mar 17 - 10:36 AM

I got into no end of trouble in bar in Chicago when I said I was going outside to roll a fag...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Mar 17 - 11:01 AM

The people in that bar in Chicago Gnome probably thought that being your shape and size, the "fag" would be more likely to roll you - down the sidewalk like a bowling ball.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Mar 17 - 11:16 AM

"I have listed the effects that Brexit has already had over eight months since the decision was taken and has not even started to be negotiated, as well as the future implications - were they accurate or not?" - Jim Carroll

They were not.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Mar 17 - 11:41 AM

"They were not."
Then refute them with something other than denials
It really doesn't get more difficult than that
Jim arroll

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Mar 17 - 01:12 PM

The people in that bar in Chicago Gnome probably thought that being your shape and size, the "fag" would be more likely to roll you - down the sidewalk like a bowling ball.

Well done Teribus! You really are getting to know what trivial means now. We just need to work on the rest of your mental problems and we may crack it.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Mar 17 - 02:07 PM

The attempt at humour from terikins is indeed a welcome change. Mind you Dave, if he ever saw you he does have a point !!

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Mar 17 - 02:31 PM

:-D They need to be careful which holes they stick their fingers up when they bowl me though! Anyway. As I keep telling you. I'm not overweight, just underheight

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Mar 17 - 02:59 PM

The mind boggles, Dave. This thread has mutated (for the better) from by-elections to by-the-livin'-'Arry!

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Mar 17 - 05:31 PM

The two main issues which affected the voting pattern in Scotland.
1.... To remain in the EU was the declared position of both the SNP and the Scottish Labour Party.

2.....The real effects of unregulated immigration has yet to be felt by people living in Scotland, most economic migrants being Polish or Romanian. Both groups usually have adequate English and seem perfectly willing to integrate into Scottish society.

The vote in Scotland was influenced by these and other factors like some farmers who get huge EU grants for doing fuck all.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Mar 17 - 06:53 PM

Assertions without evidence. As ever.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Mar 17 - 08:25 PM

"They need to be careful which holes they stick their fingers up when they bowl me though!"

Pity there are no holes in bingo balls then, Dave. You might just have hung on to clickety-click and two fat ladies in that car park that time. As it is, I'm up before the beak next Tuesday for fraud over those photocopied bingo cards. Ah, how the mighty have fallen...

See you next Tuesday (as they say), Dave? No, thought not...

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Mar 17 - 09:00 PM

Akenaton:

Your dislike of "foreigners" shines like a beacon in your last post (as in many previous other posts)

If you want these people to "resettle" in their "country of origin" just how many generations have to "resettle" (my inference of your post)

My forebears where not English. I would have to go back a thousand years to find one who wasn't born and bred here, does that me "English"?

I doubt if there are more than a handful of "pure bred" English people in the entire nation.

I'm sorry, but not surprised,to say that you come across as an out and out racist.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 03:17 AM

Steve Shaw - 10 Mar 17 - 06:53 PM

"Assertions without evidence. As ever."

But Shaw??? You and your pals do that ALL the time, and seem to think nothing of it. If you are too idle, or too disinterested to challenge the assertion with facts and figures that counter it why comment at all.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 03:37 AM

The people of Scotland seem very welcoming to refugees and other immigrants. Should they get themselves independence and remain in the EU I might see whether that could include me.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 03:43 AM

Raggy, if you go back enough generations we are all African. Nationality is really rather a poor label to characterise yourself by. We are who we are, where we were born doesn't determine that, where we were brought up can have an effect. But its what we make of ourselves that is important.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Iains
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 03:58 AM

I wonder why children under 18 are not given the vote? Perhaps Shaw could give us an explanation, polymath that he is. Perhaps he would like to extend the vote to a foetus as well. There are two avenues available in a democracy to institute change. This is either by the ballot box or revolt.
Not voting, hiding in a hole in the ground, bleating "don't know who to vote for" is simply a cop out. Sadly democracy works purely on majority votes. Surely this is not too hard a concept to grasp. Some may not like it but that is what the reality is. The majority rules.
No matter how much analysis takes place after the event, or how many excuses are put forward, the result still stands.

The most facile argument put forward is " but I paid my taxes". Well
I had a beef pie for my dinner yesterday. SO what?
"And of course we have the stupid proposition that "those that did not vote have a voice too". Well I can state quite categorically that they may have a voice but there ain't nobody has any intention of listening.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 04:08 AM

I wonder why children under 18 are not given the vote?

Any Scottish citizen above the age of 16 was able to vote in the Scottish independence referendum. This was because that decision would affect those people more than those who are older. I am pretty sure that is what Steve was referring to yet, once again, it has been misinterpreted by those who seem to speak a different language.

As to paying taxes being facile, well, if you think that your very well paid member of parliament should be able to abdicate the responsibility he or she has for helping to run the country then that is up to you. I did vote in the referendum but had there been a third choice of 'get off your arse and do what you are supposed to do', I would have chosen that one.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Iains
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 04:12 AM

D the G. If you study the regional voting pattern for brexit you would see that, had the UK a similar electoral system as America, then the leave percentage would have been 60%. Introducing taxation as an argument is a red herring. Taxation is almost universal under all systems of government. It has zero to do with voting patterns or entitlement to be heard.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 04:25 AM

It is introducing speculative arguments like if the electoral system had been different that is a red herring, Iains. It is not different - it is what we have. It is also a red herring, or more correctly a straw man argument, that taxation was introduced in connection with voting patterns. It was not. It was introduced to explain that everyone should be entitled to have their paid representatives do an honest days work instead of asking the people who pay them to make their decisions for them.

Yet more examples of skewed interpretations?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Iains
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 06:08 AM

D the G. if introducing speculative arguments that had the voting system been different..,.,,,, is a red herring it is strange that on other threads this argument has been used constantly to counter the validity of the recent presidential election. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, is it not?
Expecting MP's to do an honest days work has zero influence on the outcome of a referendum. Your argument about MP's making decisions on your behalf on the basis that you pay their wages through taxation is a non sequitur when the populace is offered a referendum. The fact that the way the referendum was presented and enacted was deeply flawed is another argument entirely.
You surely do not subscribe to the puerile Shaw view that our MP's are superior beings that know better than us, rather than the grubby, grasping lobbying fodder that some of them have been shown to be. That is apart from their other well publicised sport of having their hands in the cookie jar when it comes to expenses.
Give me a referendum any day.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 06:16 AM

Yes it is indeed a red herring Iains, regardless of who comes out with. I have never used it to argue the validity of the presidential election. Just the validity of the statement that whoever gets most votes, wins.

Expecting MPs to do an honest days work has a HUGE influence on the referendum If they had done what they were paid to do and made the decision there would have been no stupid and ill informed referendum in the first place!

No, I do not believe that MPs are superior beings. I do believe they have advisors in place to give them the facts and that they should make a decision based on those facts instead of abdicating that responsibility.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Iains
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 06:33 AM

Dthe G if you question the validity of a majority vote pray tell what distortions of logic would you replace it with.
Twould make betting on a football match or a horse race an intriguing exercise if the same procedure was followed.
It would entail a paradigm shift of epic proportions. How would you award prizes at the school sports day if there are no winners. This is some insane idea buried deep in the past columns of the gruniard.
   Without wading thru Hansard I cannot be sure if any MP's really had any proper debate on the brexit referendum. I get the impression it was a sole masterpiece from dodgy dave and led straight to his deserved doom. Advisors and MP's had zero or little influence on the concept.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 06:52 AM

He's been attending the Teribus Academy Of How To Miss The Point Every Time, Dave. Was I recommending the vote for children? No I was not. I was responding to Nigel's assertion that "the populace has spoken." It hasn't. The populace means everyone in the nation. Approximately one quarter of the populace voted to leave the EU. The point about under-18s, almost a quarter of the population and not far off the number who voted leave, is not that they should vote but that they will be severely affected by this disastrous turn of events, decided by just over a quarter of the populace, none of whom were under 18, for longer than the rest of us.

The rest of Iain's post is insulting, ignorant and laughable by turns. The irony is that he pretends to be a champion of democracy then supposes that not voting in a referendum completely disqualifies you from having a say (even though you still pay your taxes). Therein lies the seed of totalitarianism. Here, Iains. A little list off the top of my head of possible reasons for not voting in the referendum:

1. You were too lazy.

2. You didn't care.

3. You forgot.

4. You were ill on the day/in jail/abroad/smashed out of your skull.

5. You think that "all politicians are the same and you don't know what they're on about."

6. You listened to the two campaigns, decided that they were all heat and no light and didn't advance your knowledge of the issues, so you decided that you couldn't vote because you didn't know enough.

7. You oppose referendums on principle, on the grounds that you elect politicians to make important decisions about the country.

8. You listened to all the arguments and genuinely couldn't make up your mind.

Right, Iains. According to you, anyone who didn't vote now forfeits their right to be heard. As you haven't qualified that in any way, even though you've said it more than once, I assume that you think that all of the above have so forfeited. OK?

Or would you care to go through that list and discuss the relative merits and demerits of the different stances? Would you even care to put numbers to each category?   Or shall I make it easy for you? Generally speaking, people in all those categories pay their taxes and are entitled to use the services that the state pays for with those tax receipts. They aren't stopped from using the NHS or state schools for the kids because they haven't voted, and they don't get let off income tax or council tax if they haven't voted. As such, they have as much right to have a say as anyone else about how their money is used, and that includes how it is used in EU-related ways. Politics is very largely about how governments use our money. It doesn't suddenly become any less your money if you didn't vote.

And one last point (again, but you conveniently ignore it). If you feel entitled to be judgemental about people who didn't vote, maybe that entitles ME to be judgemental about some of the people who did vote. I reckon that large numbers of leave voters voted for the worst possible reasons. They were taken in by the lies about our money contributions. They were taken in by the totally unwarranted exaggerations about the deleterious effects of immigrants (who come here to work, rarely claim benefits, a majority of whom don't come from the EU anyway, who prop up our public services and who do jobs that Brits don't like doing). They were taken in by spurious arguments about "taking back control," when the overwhelming majority of laws that are EU-related have been cheerfully taken on board without demur. Or they are simply racist or xenophobic. Now I have NO evidence enabling me to put any figures to those categories. Or should I say that I have as much evidence as you have for knowing why some people didn't vote. As I asked, who made the more moral decision, the bloke who abstained because he genuinely couldn't make up his mind or the bloke who voted leave because he wants to keep foreigners out?




.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 07:05 AM

"D the G. If you study the regional voting pattern for brexit you would see that, had the UK a similar electoral system as America, then the leave percentage would have been 60%."

What an intriguing concept! Change the voting system and all of a sudden 52% becomes 60%! Good grief, don't tell Mugabe, Putin or Kim U Flung Dung I Suck that! 😂😂😂

Chucked some nijer seed around me birdie station this morning and was rewarded with a close-up of a gorgeous male bullfinch. He's welcome as long as he stays away from my apple trees. One bullfinch can strip the fruit buds off a lot of trees!

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Iains
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 07:11 AM

As I said stevie boy, you have only two avenues to create change in a democracy:- the ballot box or revolution. The ballot box is available for all with an entitlement to vote. Should they not avail themselves of that right, that is a matter for them. Subsequently their views, intentions, wishes, influence is consigned to the dustbin of history.
Whatever cute excuses you may generate cannot alter the inescapable fact that only those that vote are counted. The ballot box works on simple majorities. Don't vote. don't exist. Simples really, but obviously not for some.
If you do not vote you have no voice. The ballot box gives not a fig for your reasons to be or not to be:- all it requires is your vote. Quite frankly generating a list of reasons why some chose not to vote is of zero significance as it has zero influence on the outcome.
Now why would you think me judgemental? I am only interested in the raw figures. You are the one with the fixation on making sweeping assertions without a shred of evidence as to why or why not people voted.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 07:16 AM

Raggytash, I can assure you that I am no racist and I expect your views to the contrary are influenced more by your ideology than anything I have said.

I don't wish to "resettle" anyone , my views have always been that unregulated immigration damages us socially and economically.
Races don't really come into it, but cultures certainly do.
We need to control how many and what sort of people arrive in this country, be they white, black, or brown. Skin colour means nothing to me.

As the only Scot presently posting on this thread, my views on voting patterns have been determined by talking to hundreds of other Scots, taking data from SNP and Scottish Labour.

At heart the Scots are no keener on unregulated immigration than any other sensible people, in fact as a nation we are extremely socially conservative.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 07:51 AM

Aye, I think you are right, Steve, you aging hippy you :-)

Not only missed the point but missed the chance to communicate and missed the bus. One last try is in order

Dthe G if you question the validity of a majority vote

I am not questioning and have never questioned the validity of a majority vote. If I have done so, to use Keith's favourite tactic, give me an example. Good luck with that. You are simply flailing about with random statements without really understanding what people are saying. You need to focus. Lets try it this way...

In the Brexit vote the majority of people who voted, voted to leave and, whether I like it or not, that is what is going to happen.

In the American presidential vote the majority of people who voted, voted for Hilary Clinton but Trump got in.

Now, people can either argue that a majority decision wins in which case Bexit won and Trump did not or they can argue that a majority decision may not win in which case the Trump election stands but the Brexit vote can be questioned. They cannot argue both at the same time and retain any sort of credibility.

Got it?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Stanron
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 08:11 AM

But Trump won a majority of the electoral college, which is what that system requires to win the election, so he won by a majority. You're the one in denial.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Iains
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 08:30 AM

dthe g."Just the validity of the statement that whoever gets most votes, wins." Had you used a comma instead of a fullstop at   the end of the previous phrase your intent may have become clear. I can only go by what you say. If you mean something else entirely perhaps you need to re articulate the phrase in question. And no I have not got it because you are comparing apples with oranges. Two electoral systems, two different sets of rules. In one the electoral college dictates outcomes, in the other majority votes.

"The rest of Iain's post is insulting, ignorant and laughable by turns. The irony is that he pretends to be a champion of democracy then supposes that not voting in a referendum completely disqualifies you from having a say (even though you still pay your taxes). Therein lies the seed of totalitarianism. Here, Iains. A little list off the top of my head of possible reasons for not voting in the referendum:"

You are betraying your own stupidity above Shaw. In a referendum or any vote it is only the numbers that count. Reasons are not in the equation, neither are non votes. You either have some magical way of exerting influence on a ballot box by not voting or you are a fool for believing that you do. Totalitarianism has nothing to do with it, off your head you may well be and that may well disqualify you from voting.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 09:44 AM

You said: "Now why would you think me judgemental? I am only interested in the raw figures."

Then you said:

"Not voting, hiding in a hole in the ground, bleating "don't know who to vote for" is simply a cop out."

Sounds pretty judgemental to me! 😂😂😂

"You are the one with the fixation on making sweeping assertions without a shred of evidence as to why or why not people voted."

The very opposite. I declared that neither you nor I has the evidence to make assumptions as to why people did or didn't vote the way they did, let alone put numbers to it. It's all there in my posts, Iains. So are the inconsistencies in your posts I've just pointed to, unfortunately for you. Perhaps you should spend some time considering the issues to hand rather than thinking of the next sideswipe you can come up with at "stevieboy" or "jimmy," etc. You just make yourself easy meat. And you come across as rude and ignorant.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 10:03 AM

"In a referendum or any vote it is only the numbers that count."

Which makes Hillary a clear winner. You OK with that? 😂

What "counts" is the electoral system in force. Numbers of electoral college votes "count" in the US. Numbers of MPs "count" here. The numbers of votes "counted" in our referendum. In systems with PR it may be that both votes and transferred votes "count." "Only the numbers count" is meaningless.

"As I said stevie boy, you have only two avenues to create change in a democracy:- the ballot box or revolution."

What a load of utter tosh. Blimey, you're getting worse all the time.

Another nice spring day this end. Lovely stroll up and down Bude canal. Lots of birdsong (generally the males telling other males to bugger off, but it still sounds great). Celandines everywhere. Huge clump of marsh-marigolds in a boggy bit. Wild garlic bursting into leaf. Gotta squash a leaf and sniff. One of my favourite springtime aromas.

If you like olives, Sainsbury's manzanilla ones with lemon and coriander are lovely and only £1.90 a pot. The coriander is well in the background if you don't like its assertiveness.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Iains
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 10:37 AM

Are you obtuse stevie? or perhaps just indulging in your favourite sport of trolling.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 10:55 AM

Well done Iains and Stanron, you've absolutely trounced the "Usual Suspects" yet again using logic, common sense and irrefutable fact.

They've admitted their defeat as Shaw has now wandered off on the "Flora and Fauna" track with a Sainsbury's Advert thrown in either for good measure, or just to confirm his admission of defeat.

Question for our former Trades Union activists who witter on about elections, voter turn out, votes.

UNITE Trades Union - 1,382,126

Last leadership election:

Len McCluskey: 144,570 votes.

Jerry Hicks: 79,819 votes.

Number of ballot papers found to be invalid: 1,412.

Total number of valid votes cast: 224,389.

Turnout: 15.2 per cent.

Now because Corbyn's pal got in you will not hear any of them murmur about the voices of the 84.8% of the members who were entitled to vote but who didn't.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 11:40 AM

Stanton makes the point for me Iains and Teribus. The two votes were on entirely different systems. Those who seek to gain points by claiming they both got in on a majority are missing the fact that two different systems are in operation. The fact that I do not need to go through any linguistic trials get that point across to Steve, Raggy, Jim and countless other people further underlines the fact that we have a communications issue. Please note that I have never laid the blame at anyone's door. It is some sort of block that I can neither understand nor resolve.

Teribus. The only person currently on about people not voting having no say is your protégé Iains. I assume your point about the union vote was addressed to him. BTW, you seem to be slipping back. You need to keep up with the humour to get any better at it.

The camellia in our front garden has started to flower and has more buds on it than I have ever seen before. Just planted some spuds in a small sack. I may have left them a bit too long before planting but is so, not a huge loss. And what have I told you about stores other than Morrisons, Steve? If I as much as enter one I will be excommunicated and have to spend eternity wandering round the hell known as IKEA:-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 12:36 PM

Gnome:

"The two votes were on entirely different systems."

Thank goodness at least one of you have finally "cottoned on" to that little detail - pass the word on.

"The only person currently on about people not voting having no say is your protégé Iains"

I actually think that the point being made is that in any vote, irrespective of the subject, if you are entitled to vote and for whatever reason you chose not to vote then you have got no right to complain about the result - it has S.F.A. to do with not having a say in anything. Might take another 100 posts I suppose until you "cotton on" to that but we can live in hope as they say.

The statistics for McCluskey's election are most definitely aimed at who I said I aimed them at but specifically ex-Trades Union "Activist" Shaw - take all his arguments related to the Brexit result and apply them to McCluskey's election, let's here him state that McCluskey's election should be ignored. Want the stark comparison?

Brexit electorate - 46,501,241 compared to Unite Membership - 1,382,126

Brexit voter turnout - 72.2% compared to Unite voter turnout - 15.2%

Brexit Leave Vote - 51.9% compared to McCluskey's vote - 64.4%

Brexit Leave vote - 37.4% of the total electorate compared to McCluskey's vote - 10.5% of the total membership.

I know which of those two elections is more questionable and it certainly is NOT Brexit.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 01:11 PM

if you are entitled to vote and for whatever reason you chose not to vote then you have got no right to complain about the result

Yes you are. Anyone is entitled to complain about anything. It is what us people call free speech. Also, your statement implies that if you did vote, you are entitled to complain. In which case, why, when people who voted complain about the result, they get told to shut the fuck up by you and your buddies? It seems that you want no complaints about the result from either those who did or did not vote.

Now, can you get back to the humour again. Tell us a joke. Or at least mention Nigel Farage or something...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Iains
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 01:19 PM

dthe g
"Any Scottish citizen above the age of 16 was able to vote in the Scottish independence referendum"

But the major point you managed to miss is that as far as the brexit vote was concerned they are still regarded as children and unable to vote until 18, as also is the case for european elections.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 01:38 PM

"Anyone is entitled to complain about anything. It is what us people call free speech."

Very true Gnome, however, if what you are using that "freedom of speech" is to complain and challenge the result and validity of an election/referendum where you chose not to exercise your vote then you are on very thin ice. You either believe in the democratic process or you don't - the "Remoaners" obviously don't.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 02:41 PM

Referenda have no place in a parliamentary democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Iains
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 03:21 PM

I hate to be a pedant but:-"Referendums is logically preferable as a plural form meaning 'ballots on one issue' (as a Latin gerund, referendum has no plural). The Latin plural gerundive 'referenda', meaning 'things to be referred', necessarily connotes a plurality of issues".

"Referenda have no place in a parliamentary democracy." This is a valid proposition but sadly the UK has had 12 referenda in the past

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_in_the_United_Kingdom
Therefore a referendum definitely has a place within the UK system of government by virtue of the fact that the precedent has been set.
However the recent referendum has exposed some major weaknesses in the present system. Prior to such an event Parliament should enact the required legislation to make the result binding. Because dodgy dave was so cocksure about the remain vote winning nothing was done to cater for a majority vote for leaving. The entire exercise was a tragic comedy of errors and rank incompetence.
   My feeling is that on major issues a referendum is the correct way to go, otherwise the ruling party and their whips can exert influence and sway the vote. Anyone that believes the average politician is more concerned for his electorate than his sinecure is barking mad.
If all politicians were men of integrity and not careerists I could perhaps accept that the need for a referendum was negated as the required mechanisms to vote exist in Parliament.
However in the real world, the lobbyist, party whips, revolving doors, etc, etc inevitably exert a negative influence and a vote predicated on concsience may well be as rare as angel dust.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 03:41 PM

Succinct and to the point, David. The only reason these brexiteers are crowing about "the people having spoken" (which the vast majority haven't) is that they won the second referendum. Yes, the second. We had one in 1975 that they decisely lost but they have never given up trying to get their second one. I actually admire that and regard it as valid. Of course, they will say that the EEC we joined was just a common market and that things have changed. But there is still a common market and no-one was asked in the "democratic" second referendum whether they thought we should leave it. In fact, during the campaign we were given every hope that we'd be able to stay in the single market, a pipe dream of course, one of the many lies we were told by the leave campaign. As for the "things have radically changed in the last forty years" argument, I'll tell you summat. In the next two years of trying to do "deals" and make fudges, a hell of a lot more is going to change. So it's strange that the brexiteers are so resistant to having a third referendum (yes, a third). They got theirs but, scared that "the people" might change their minds after the negotiations, they are thoroughly resistant to what would be the most democratic outcome that any referendum could deliver (whether you agree with 'em or not), giving us a say on the final deal.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 03:59 PM

So you think that an ignorant electorate are all "men of integrity," etc. Well I don't think they are, in very large numbers. I think that a large number of leave voters may have succumbed to the arguments of Johnson and Farage and voted on racist grounds. Can't prove it, any more then you can prove that MPs are in large part lacking in integrity. Yes we have had a number of referendums. But that does not necessarily enshrine them as integral to our democracy. During the time we've had parliamentary democracy, we've had capital punishment and we did deals with apartheid South Africa and supported General Pinochet. Doing wrong things whilst giving people the vote does not make those wrong things virtuous. By any measure, referendums are absolutely the wrong way to go. They are an abrogation of parliamentary democracy. Even when they suit your cause, as the 1975 one suited mine. If you can't shed your triumphalism and consider the matter objectively, you're not worth talking to.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 04:00 PM

Glad we agree on something Teribus but thin ice is what some people chose to skate on. Who are you to tell them not to do it?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 04:22 PM

Someone who is interested in saving their sorry arses from the undoubted dangers they would be exposed to should they go through it.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Iains
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 04:30 PM

"Triuphalism" What on earth are you wittering about? Did you ask akela what it meant before using it? I cannot see any context deserving such a word.
"By any measure, referendums are absolutely the wrong way to go"
bit of a sweeping assertion. Is that a mere stevie the boy wonder construction or can you back it up with evidence with some degree of credibility?
I think you are out of your depth, better get back to the weeds.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 04:33 PM

Stop being such an idiot, Iains.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 05:04 PM

You arrogant fool Stevie.....who are you to denigrate millions of people who have lost out to globalisation, as "racists"?

You have been wrong about almost every political issue in the last five years, Brexit, US election, immigration, etc.

These people have no pension featherbed ex "teachers", they live in poverty, obviously something that you have no understanding of. You live in a bubble sonny......someday there is going to be an almighty pop!!

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Iains
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 05:29 PM

If you class me as an idiot and you admit to being off the top of your head, where does that place you on the scale of lunacy I wonder.
Oh and by the way, looking back thru some old threads I find the name shaw coupled with a description of being arrogant on more than a few occasions. This would lead me to suppose that you are the one with the problem. None so blind as those that cannot see stevie. You really must stop confusing the classroom with the big bad world outside. You may have felt you had papal infallibility in the classroom, but here I am afraid you must encounter reality. Your thoughts on anything stand entirely on their merit. and from what I have seen so far generally that ain't very high and they tend to topple when confronted by logic.
I suggest you get on yer bike, that you keep waffling on about, and peddle off among the weeds.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 05:48 PM

Desperados! 😂😂😂 Wake up and smell the narcissi! 💐🌼🌻🌺🌷🌸🥀🌹🌾🤸🏻‍♀️

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Mar 17 - 04:13 AM

Put up the bike shelter yesterday and it was particularly wet last night. Must go to check if it was all OK soon. The description said big enough for 2 bikes. I got 3 in! But one was the folder. Must see if the potato bag got too soggy as well but I think that should drain OK.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Mar 17 - 04:42 AM

I seem to recall that "draining the spuds" is a polite euphemism for going for a pee. 🤓

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Mar 17 - 04:44 AM

I really think this is finished
Two threads ending in schoolyard name-calling is enough for any promary school
You all should be ashamed of yourselves
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Mar 17 - 04:54 AM

Not before reaching 300 anyway!

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Mar 17 - 05:26 AM

Nice one Keith:-)

Forgot to mention the letters I got on Friday. One was from the bowel cancer screening service saying my test results were fine. The other was from Yorkshire water saying they were going to do some work. So, on the one hand my bowels are ok but, on the other, my water will be discoloured.

Must say it appealed to my sense of the ridiculous:-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Mar 17 - 07:10 AM

You can can fit your bowels on one hand, Dave?

"All," Jim??

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Mar 17 - 07:15 AM

I used to think that wanting to a dentist was a bit mad (several of my mates followed that path), but having as your ultimate career ambition the aspiration to be an analyst of faecal samples...??

Actually, "analyst" seems oddly appropriate. Can't quite put my finger on it...

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Iains
Date: 12 Mar 17 - 09:01 AM

Here you are steve and gnomie. Your alter egos. Carefully pitched to your level. Enjoy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6zNwBTLSWU

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Raggytash
Date: 12 Mar 17 - 09:09 AM

Cheers Iains, I loved the Flower Pot men when I was a youngster.

Flobblelob

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Iains
Date: 12 Mar 17 - 09:14 AM

Most happy to oblige. Weeeeed!

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Mar 17 - 09:26 AM

"All," Jim??"
Don't fall to their level Steve - you're better than that
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Mar 17 - 11:56 AM

Hmmm. Not quite sure what I might have said to get me that low, Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Mar 17 - 12:51 PM

Most happy to oblige. Weeeeed!

Why, don't mind if I do.

Jim - We are raising the standard of discussion considerably I'll have you know!

Steve - Thought of you earlier. Went to visit aging parent and sons and heirs in Salford. There was a problem where the M66 joins the M60 with resultant queues so we avoided the Irwell Valley bit of the M60 and came off at the Middleton junction. Hey, there is a song about that. Mike Canavan I think... Anyway, went past Heaton Park and down Sheepfoot Lane and across the 2 Bury Roads - Can never remember which is which. There is a new Italian place with a coffee shop on the corner of one of them. Ever tried it?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Mar 17 - 01:10 PM

Heaton Park's the old road, innit? Haven't been there for a few years, ever since my mum got too infirm to go for a walk. Those motorways are a pain at the moment and will be for years. The "smart motorways" near Brum and Bristol do seem to do the job though, so maybe the roadworks are worth it. On both Thursday and Friday afternoons the week before last there was trouble on the M60 east of Besses and the traffic backed up right round Besses roundabout. Bloody chaos. When I'm going to Radcliffe I always come off at Besses, from where it's less than ten minutes to their house.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Raggytash
Date: 12 Mar 17 - 01:28 PM

In Middleton Junction there's a brewery so fine
Where they make a potion much sweeter than wine
if you've never tried it then now is the time
for a pint of John Willie Lee's a pint of John Willie Lee's

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Mar 17 - 01:59 PM

Ahhh - That was it! Besses o'th' Barn brass band brought it back. Not the John Willie Lees song, Raggy. Definitely a Mike Canavan one with the chorus

"Well some works at the Junction
And some works at the Jam
But they all join up in t'chorus
For the Middleton Junction Band"

It refers to, if I remember rightly, the rivalry between 2 factories (the Junction and the Jam - Not sure what they were) being forgotten when they got together to play with the brass band.

Now we are talking important stuff here. The rivalry between brass bands is legendary - Probably more so than football teams :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Mar 17 - 02:12 PM

My grandad and uncle (his lad) both played in Besses band. Not sure, and there's nobody left to ask, but I think they were E flat bass and euphonium. Their surname was Curliss, quite a rare one with that spelling. I've quaffed many a pint of John Willie Lee's in my time, and a good few jars of Boddies in the days when Boddies WAS Boddies.