-[I]- Is anyone still here?

426 views
Skip to first unread message

Paul .Jamison

unread,
May 17, 2017, 12:36:26 AM5/17/17
to
This is worrying.

Paul

Nigel Stapley

unread,
May 17, 2017, 1:04:45 AM5/17/17
to
On 17/05/2017 05:36, Paul .Jamison wrote:
> This is worrying.
>
> Paul
>
Nah. Trump and May are 'worrying'. This is just...troubling.

--
Regards

Nigel Stapley

www.thejudge.me.uk

<reply-to will bounce>

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

steveski

unread,
May 17, 2017, 1:42:58 AM5/17/17
to
On Tue, 16 May 2017 21:36:24 -0700, Paul .Jamison wrote:

> This is worrying.

Yes, but nowt's 'appenin'.

--
Steveski

Robert Carnegie

unread,
May 17, 2017, 4:46:46 AM5/17/17
to
On Wednesday, 17 May 2017 05:36:26 UTC+1, Paul .Jamison wrote:
> This is worrying.
>
> Paul

Shh! They'll hear us!

Lewis

unread,
May 17, 2017, 9:04:45 PM5/17/17
to
In message <TpWdnUjuStB7RIbE...@brightview.co.uk> Nigel Stapley <un...@judgemental.plus.com> wrote:
> On 17/05/2017 05:36, Paul .Jamison wrote:
>> This is worrying.
>>
>> Paul
>>
> Nah. Trump and May are 'worrying'. This is just...troubling.

Too many people fled to Farcebook.


--
"Reality continues to ruin my life."

Paul .Jamison

unread,
May 17, 2017, 9:59:13 PM5/17/17
to
*sigh* Yeah, Poofbook seems to have turned a lot of message boards and groups into wastelands.



larry

unread,
May 19, 2017, 7:57:17 PM5/19/17
to
Ain't nobody here but us chickens.


--
After investigation, believe that which you have yourselves
tested and found reasonable, and which is for your good
and that of others.
Gautama.

real_gri...@yahoo.co.uk

unread,
May 20, 2017, 2:28:03 AM5/20/17
to
17 May 2017 at 18:59, Paul .Jamison wrote:
Re: -[I]- Is anyone still here? (at least in part)
(Hopefully) many people will avoid FleeceBook and their bossiness model of
offering up vulnerable / weak people to (probably) even more vulnerable / weak
people, by playing on their vulnerabilities / weaknesses (I can explain but
guess if your still here you know what I mean) don´t get me started


real_gri...@yahoo.co.uk

unread,
May 20, 2017, 2:29:19 AM5/20/17
to
17 May 2017 at 18:59, Paul .Jamison wrote:
Re: -[I]- Is anyone still here? (at least in part)

Kerr Mudd-John

unread,
May 20, 2017, 6:16:48 AM5/20/17
to
On Sat, 20 May 2017 00:53:53 +0100, larry <ljm...@wightman.ca> wrote:

> On 2017-05-17, Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 17 May 2017 05:36:26 UTC+1, Paul .Jamison wrote:
>>> This is worrying.
>>>
>>> Paul
>>
>> Shh! They'll hear us!
>
> Ain't nobody here but us chickens.
>
>
Nah, it's all turtles these days.

--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug

larry

unread,
May 20, 2017, 8:46:36 AM5/20/17
to
Yes. And all the way down, too.

larry

unread,
May 20, 2017, 8:49:45 AM5/20/17
to
> guess if your still here you know what I mean) don?t get me started
>
>

M'lady dropped her FB account first (proof once again that
she de smarta one.)

p. pinto

unread,
May 21, 2017, 11:34:21 AM5/21/17
to
- hi; yr hmbl srppnt.'s hardly ever "here" now; fb expands to take up
to (most of the available time in the day left after 45catting and 45-
wielding) (and 555 bussing - non- shakespearean variety - to anyplace
from milnthorpe (& back))... - and lj's not _quite_ dead (yet)...

- but i do look in from time-to-time; i'm *beginning* to get a bit
fitter and similar stuff (having had a month's course of being zapped
daily in a ginormous, open-sided, ultra-high power microwave ovenoid
at preston's robespierre clinic°... told by a locum a month or two
back, "of course it's taken you a year or so to feel like you're
recovering; just because we didn't cut you open, doesn't mean you
didn't receive about the same trauma from the procedure: you should
have been told to expect to take eighteen months to two years to
recover..." (which, to be fair, may've been in the half a dozen plus
booklets, eight leaflets, and three books recommended further reading).

- but, i amn't dead *_yet_*.

- how're afpeople still around - even, lurking?

- love, ppint.

° - managed to convince several of the staff to so refer to the place
--
'tis due to ppinqueans that set light
to nelson's hat
it glows at night

Richard Bos

unread,
May 21, 2017, 1:21:31 PM5/21/17
to
larry <ljm...@wightman.ca> wrote:

> On 2017-05-17, Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 17 May 2017 05:36:26 UTC+1, Paul .Jamison wrote:
> >> This is worrying.
> >>
> >> Paul
> >
> > Shh! They'll hear us!
>
> Ain't nobody here but us chickens.

Hollywood Chickens?

Richard

larry

unread,
May 22, 2017, 12:31:19 PM5/22/17
to
On 2017-05-21, p. pinto <ppin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> - hi; yr hmbl srppnt.'s hardly ever "here" now; fb expands to take up
> to (most of the available time in the day left after 45catting and 45-
> wielding) (and 555 bussing - non- shakespearean variety - to anyplace
> from milnthorpe (& back))... - and lj's not _quite_ dead (yet)...
>
> - but i do look in from time-to-time; i'm *beginning* to get a bit
> fitter and similar stuff (having had a month's course of being zapped
> daily in a ginormous, open-sided, ultra-high power microwave ovenoid
> at preston's robespierre clinic??... told by a locum a month or two
> back, "of course it's taken you a year or so to feel like you're
> recovering; just because we didn't cut you open, doesn't mean you
> didn't receive about the same trauma from the procedure: you should
> have been told to expect to take eighteen months to two years to
> recover..." (which, to be fair, may've been in the half a dozen plus
> booklets, eight leaflets, and three books recommended further reading).
>
> - but, i amn't dead *_yet_*.
>
> - how're afpeople still around - even, lurking?
>
> - love, ppint.
>
> ?? - managed to convince several of the staff to so refer to the place

My sister said she would have been less panicked if she
had watched the instructional DVD from the oncologist first.

So glad you said hello.
Be Well!!

p. pinto

unread,
May 22, 2017, 2:31:54 PM5/22/17
to
- hi; your sister's oncologist provided an oncology dvd° ?

- now _there's_ posh for you! (- i trust she is well, or getting
so - ?)

- yr hmbl srppnt. did get patient transport(ation) down to preston
and back, with a two-hour pick-up window; on a couple of occasions,
the commercial taxi°°- driver failed to find me, and didn't bother
to phone me and ask - and listen to! - directions, because he knew
he was in the right place (which he wasn't), and went away without
yr hmbl srppnt. . . on one of these, the robespierre's reception
insisted i wait to be picked up "soon" - for five hours - in winter
with no heating...

- the robespierre's a private clinic of some variety, within the
nhs hospital grounds, so private does *not* mean "better", thank-
you kindly, jeremy "berkshire" hunt, health minist^W minion of
our dearly-beloathed, self-proclaimédly "caring, sharing" deranged
dalek of a prime monster and would-be empress or dictator. . .

- </rant>

- love, ppint.

° - oncology *ought* to be the systematic study & explanation of uncles

°° - 'twere about half+half volunteer service/ambulance & contract taxi
--
decadence, n; the finest flowering of civilization

--

larry

unread,
May 23, 2017, 4:28:44 PM5/23/17
to
On 2017-05-22, p. pinto <ppin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> - hi; your sister's oncologist provided an oncology dvd?? ?
>
> - now _there's_ posh for you! (- i trust she is well, or getting
> so - ?)

Unfortunately, no. She had one of those brain tumors that by
the time it had shown symptoms, was past being treatable. The
oncologist tried two sessions of radiation and chemo without
progress and then my sister refused further treatment.

>
> - yr hmbl srppnt. did get patient transport(ation) down to preston
> and back, with a two-hour pick-up window; on a couple of occasions,
> the commercial taxi????- driver failed to find me, and didn't bother
> to phone me and ask - and listen to! - directions, because he knew
> he was in the right place (which he wasn't), and went away without
> yr hmbl srppnt. . . on one of these, the robespierre's reception
> insisted i wait to be picked up "soon" - for five hours - in winter
> with no heating...
>

We volunteer drive. Sometimes to court, sometimes to doctor appointments,
parent-child sessions, dialysis or cancer treatments, day care for
the elderly, interviews with the welfare authorities, weekly
checkins at the police station, taking children to visit their
other parent for the weekend. We have never failed to get our
client to/from whatever their task was. *and we have two shoes*


> - the robespierre's a private clinic of some variety, within the
> nhs hospital grounds, so private does *not* mean "better", thank-
> you kindly, jeremy "berkshire" hunt, health minist^W minion of
> our dearly-beloathed, self-proclaim??dly "caring, sharing" deranged
> dalek of a prime monster and would-be empress or dictator. . .
>
> - </rant>
>

Yea. The 'private helthcare clinic' scam is something we are fighting
here with all our 'common, single payer/public care' might and somehow
are winning.
> - love, ppint.

Love from m'lady and i, both.
>
> ?? - oncology *ought* to be the systematic study & explanation of uncles
>
> ???? - 'twere about half+half volunteer service/ambulance & contract taxi
> --
> decadence, n; the finest flowering of civilization
>
America: the only place which passed from barbarism to decadence without
an intervening period of civilization.

Richard Bos

unread,
May 24, 2017, 5:11:04 PM5/24/17
to
real_gri...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

> 17 May 2017 at 18:59, Paul .Jamison wrote:
> >On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 8:04:45 PM UTC-5, Lewis wrote:
> >> In message <TpWdnUjuStB7RIbE...@brightview.co.uk> Nigel St=
> >> > On 17/05/2017 05:36, Paul .Jamison wrote:
> >
> >> >> This is worrying.

> >> > Nah. Trump and May are 'worrying'. This is just...troubling.

May doesn't worry me at all. But then, I'm not a Limey.

> >> Too many people fled to Farcebook.

> >*sigh* Yeah, Poofbook seems to have turned a lot of message boards and g=
> roups into wastelands.
>
> (Hopefully) many people will avoid FleeceBook and their bossiness model of=
>
> offering up vulnerable / weak people to (probably) even more vulnerable / =
> weak
> people, by playing on their vulnerabilities / weaknesses (I can explain bu=
> t
> guess if your still here you know what I mean) don=B4t get me started

Fat chance. The opportunity to [Like] someone you wouldn't have deigned
to [Poke] back when you knew each other in high school is more important
than keeping your children's lives private. So is your highly important
and completely objective newsfeed from JennyMcCarthy.Com[1] and the
HuffPost.

By the way, QuotedIllegible is another nail in Usenet's coffin.

Richard

[1] On whose head, all the curses of all religions _including_ atheism

Chris Zakes

unread,
May 28, 2017, 10:02:47 PM5/28/17
to
<shrug> In *my* observation, newsgroups were drying up well before
Facebook came on the scene. If anything, that hastened the end, but
didn't cause it.

-Chris Zakes
Texas

--

GNU Terry Pratchett
Mind how you go.

real_gri...@yahoo.co.uk

unread,
May 29, 2017, 2:42:32 AM5/29/17
to
24 May 2017 at 21:11, Richard Bos wrote:
Re: -[I]- Is anyone still here? (at least in part)

>real_gri...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>> (Hopefully) many people will avoid FleeceBook and their bossiness model of
>> offering up vulnerable / weak people to (probably) even more vulnerable /
>> weak people, by playing on their vulnerabilities / weaknesses (I can explain but
>> guess if your still here you know what I mean) don't get me started

>Fat chance. The opportunity to [Like] someone you wouldn't have deigned
>to [Poke] back when you knew each other in high school is more important
>than keeping your children's lives private.

I have no idea about either but will defer to your knowledge, it seems counter
intuitive, when I was in education it "should" have been the other way around
(Not [Poke] someone you don´t [Like]) though maybe hormones were involved ;->)



real_gri...@yahoo.co.uk

unread,
May 29, 2017, 5:59:34 AM5/29/17
to
24 May 2017 at 21:11, Richard Bos wrote:
Re: -[I]- Is anyone still here? (at least in part)

>real_gri...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>> (Hopefully) many people will avoid FleeceBook and their bossiness model of
>> offering up vulnerable / weak people to (probably) even more vulnerable /
>> weak people, by playing on their vulnerabilities / weaknesses (I can explain but
>> guess if your still here you know what I mean) don't get me started

>Fat chance. The opportunity to [Like] someone you wouldn't have deigned
>to [Poke] back when you knew each other in high school is more important
>than keeping your children's lives private.

Lesley Weston

unread,
Jun 9, 2017, 7:43:09 PM6/9/17
to
Yes, indeed! There's been a long, slow decline for many years, and the
current desert [1] is just the last phase :-(

I've looked in for the first time in quite a while to see what afp had
to say about the election, but nothing doing so far. I guess it's going
to take a while for the shock to mellow into normal outrage.

[1] Currant dessert would be much nicer [2].

[2] I do miss feetnotes on FB. You can put them in, but it's clumsy and
people don't know to look for them.

Lesley.

--
My real e-mail is leswes att shaw dott ca

real_gri...@yahoo.co.uk

unread,
Jun 10, 2017, 4:11:49 AM6/10/17
to
09 June 2017 at 16:43, Lesley Weston wrote:
Re: -[I]- Is anyone still here? (at least in part)

>I've looked in for the first time in quite a while to see what afp had
>to say about the election, but nothing doing so far. I guess it's going
>to take a while for the shock to mellow into normal outrage.

Why would we say much about "it"?
Whoever voted,
They have spoken their minds about whatever issue was been voted on
The losers will have bemoaned the voting system or the counting

Hope that covers most eventualities and will be current whenever this is read
(even from the archives)




larry

unread,
Jun 13, 2017, 2:57:42 PM6/13/17
to
On 2017-06-09, Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 05-28-17 7:02 PM, Chris Zakes wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 May 2017 18:59:12 -0700 (PDT), an orbital mind-control
>> laser caused "Paul .Jamison" <paul...@yahoo.com> to write:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 8:04:45 PM UTC-5, Lewis wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <TpWdnUjuStB7RIbE...@brightview.co.uk> Nigel Stapley <un...@judgemental.plus.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On 17/05/2017 05:36, Paul .Jamison wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> This is worrying.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>
>>>>> Nah. Trump and May are 'worrying'. This is just...troubling.
>>>>
>>>> Too many people fled to Farcebook.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> "Reality continues to ruin my life."
>>>
>>> *sigh* Yeah, Poofbook seems to have turned a lot of message boards and groups into wastelands.
>>
>>
>> <shrug> In *my* observation, newsgroups were drying up well before
>> Facebook came on the scene. If anything, that hastened the end, but
>> didn't cause it.
>>
> Yes, indeed! There's been a long, slow decline for many years, and the
> current desert [1] is just the last phase :-(
>
> I've looked in for the first time in quite a while to see what afp had
> to say about the election, but nothing doing so far. I guess it's going
> to take a while for the shock to mellow into normal outrage.

Which particular election, there have been so many?
US UK BC etc.

While the elected president is't the biggest Know-Nothing to
hold the post, he is destined to disappoint just about all comers.
Both the ladies are hanging onto power by the least of mandates, I see.

mers
>
> [1] Currant dessert would be much nicer [2].
>
> [2] I do miss feetnotes on FB. You can put them in, but it's clumsy and
> people don't know to look for them.
>
> Lesley.
>


--

Lesley Weston

unread,
Jun 14, 2017, 7:19:01 PM6/14/17
to
I meant the UK election, which had just happened when I posted that, but
any of them would do. Also France and the Netherlands, though in each of
those those countries sanity prevailed and a properly-elected Government
is carrying on with running the country.
>
> While the elected president is't the biggest Know-Nothing to
> hold the post, he is destined to disappoint just about all comers.
> Both the ladies are hanging onto power by the least of mandates, I see.

Them ain't no ladies...

Clark will be gone on the 22nd, which is the longest she can delay the
Throne Speech and the consequent No Confidence vote. I had hoped she
would show more class by gracefully accepting reality and conceding,
though I don't really know why I thought she would; she's a politician
after all, and a right-wing one at that. But we still won't have the NDP
Government that we voted for; instead we'll have the Green Government of
just three MLAs that strategic voting brought down on us.

May will (hopefully) not last much longer either. Her deal with the
devil seems to be unpopular with everybody on all sides. And this
horrible fire combined with the two terrorist attacks, all of them
personally her fault, won't help. Without strategic voting in that case
too, Jeremy Corbyn would be appointing his Cabinet right about now.

And we can hope that Trump will be gone soon too. They seem to be taking
an unconscionably long time about impeaching him; I guess they want to
make quite sure their case is watertight before they proceed. I don't
think strategic voting is responsible for that particular disaster, though.

Robert Carnegie

unread,
Jun 15, 2017, 3:57:07 AM6/15/17
to
"They" would be his own party, so I don't think
they're in a hurry to impeach their President.
Some of them are talking about pre-emptively
removing the Special Prosecutor.

I didn't bring up the political situation
(UK for me) because it's mostly off-topic
and liable to be contentious amongst friends.

Citizens of Ankh-Morpork are ruled constitutionally
by Lord Vetinari - he is in excellent health -
and by committee; if you offend Vetinari, he puts
you in a committee, and you may even be grateful.
The population treat great disasters as free public
entertainment, and they appreciate democracy
particularly... when it happens somewhere else.

I suppose we can do that too?

larry

unread,
Jun 15, 2017, 8:07:01 PM6/15/17
to
I can't (actually I can, but despair,) that May would ally herself with
The scots-irish Orange DUP.
I guess it makes them the Regressive-Conservative Alliance ?

>> While the elected president is't the biggest Know-Nothing to
>> hold the post, he is destined to disappoint just about all comers.
>> Both the ladies are hanging onto power by the least of mandates, I see.
>
> Them ain't no ladies...
>
As a women with babe-in-arms is addressed as Mrs, a woman in political
office, in another country, is dubbed lady (this Lady's not for turning.)

> Clark will be gone on the 22nd, which is the longest she can delay the
> Throne Speech and the consequent No Confidence vote. I had hoped she
> would show more class by gracefully accepting reality and conceding,
> though I don't really know why I thought she would; she's a politician
> after all, and a right-wing one at that. But we still won't have the NDP
> Government that we voted for; instead we'll have the Green Government of
> just three MLAs that strategic voting brought down on us.
>
> May will (hopefully) not last much longer either. Her deal with the
> devil seems to be unpopular with everybody on all sides. And this
> horrible fire combined with the two terrorist attacks, all of them
> personally her fault, won't help. Without strategic voting in that case
> too, Jeremy Corbyn would be appointing his Cabinet right about now.
>
> And we can hope that Trump will be gone soon too. They seem to be taking
> an unconscionably long time about impeaching him; I guess they want to
> make quite sure their case is watertight before they proceed. I don't
> think strategic voting is responsible for that particular disaster, though.
>
> Lesley.
>


--

Lesley Weston

unread,
Jun 15, 2017, 8:26:00 PM6/15/17
to
Indeed! It also makes the UK Tories the consorts of terrorists. There's
a meme floating around Facebook just now (you guys really are missing a
lot by not joining the other afpers on FB): A picture of May saying "We
will not negotiate with terrorists!" and another, recent, picture of her
apparently saying "We will simply form a coalition with them."
>
>>> While the elected president is't the biggest Know-Nothing to
>>> hold the post, he is destined to disappoint just about all comers.
>>> Both the ladies are hanging onto power by the least of mandates, I see.
>>
>> Them ain't no ladies...
>>
> As a women with babe-in-arms is addressed as Mrs, a woman in political
> office, in another country, is dubbed lady (this Lady's not for turning.)

Not when she has shown herself repeatedly to be no lady. A lady always
takes care that those around her are comfortable before she sees to her
own needs. Both the women you mention are taking care of themselves not
just first but only, with no concern at all for the damage they're doing
to everybody else.

Robert Carnegie

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 4:08:15 AM6/16/17
to
Technically the DUP isn't a front for terrorists.
That was the PUP or BURP or some other acronym.
The DUP are merely bigots. And technically also
a church. I assume they /know/ terrorists.
They know Sinn Fein.

There were or are lots of little "nationalist"
(IRA, or with an I there somewhere[*]) and
"loyalist" (with a U for Ulster) terrorist groups
in the North and I think they each had their
"political party" version, if only for publicity.
Lots of IRA's, presumably the same people each
time. Like "Rock Family Trees".

[*] I've been reading about Irish accents -
meaning the symbols over letters in Gaelic.
Just vowels, I think. The Royal Mail seems to be
determined to ignore them.

real_gri...@yahoo.co.uk

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 6:41:13 AM6/16/17
to
15 June 2017 at 17:25, Lesley Weston wrote:
Re: -[I]- Is anyone still here? (at least in part)

>Indeed! It also makes the UK Tories the consorts of terrorists.

Unfortunately in the modern world we all have to deal with terrorists, be it
old ANC, EOKA, IRA, PFLP members or any other group or their financiers, face
it for years the US financed and armed the IRA, and also those who would become
Al-Qaeda, times change, yesterdays ally is tomorrows enemy and vice a versa

What any of this has to do with AFP is beyond me though


Nigel Stapley

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 7:22:32 AM6/16/17
to
On 16/06/2017 01:03, larry wrote:

>>>
> I can't (actually I can, but despair,) that May would ally herself with
> The scots-irish Orange DUP.
> I guess it makes them the Regressive-Conservative Alliance ?

The full name of her particular mafiosi is "The Conservative *and
Unionist* Party. Their Scottish branch played on this during the
election for all they were worth (about 17p), playing the sectarian card
in those parts of the west of Scotland where the Orange mob still has
some influence. This follows on from some very nasty characters being
elected in her party's name during the local elections there in May.

This doesn't bother the 'leader' of the Scottish branch, one Ruth
Davidson, who knows that she'll get an easy ride from most of the media
because she is, a) a Tory, b) a Unionist, and c) an 'out' lesbian.

This is why most of that media are proclaiming that the Tories 'won' the
election in Scotland, despite the fact that they got less than a quarter
of the total votes, less than a quarter of the seats, and were the
benficiaries of some strange patterns of tactical voting.

(On this, see Stu Campbell's analyses at
https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-great-stalemate/ and
https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-cannon-fodder/ )

For my own take on things, try
http://www.thejudge.me.uk/Not_blog/Not_blog_20170608.htm and
http://www.thejudge.me.uk/Not_blog/Not_blog_20170612.htm .
--
Regards

Nigel Stapley

www.thejudge.me.uk

<reply-to will bounce>

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Nigel Stapley

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 7:52:05 AM6/16/17
to
On 16/06/2017 09:08, Robert Carnegie wrote:

>
> Technically the DUP isn't a front for terrorists.
> That was the PUP or BURP or some other acronym.
> The DUP are merely bigots. And technically also
> a church. I assume they /know/ terrorists.
> They know Sinn Fein.

The DUP has well-attested links with what are termed in the official
discourse, "loyalist oaramilitaries" (1), mostly the 'Ulster Volunteer
Force' and the 'Loyalist Volunteer Force', although there have also been
clear links with the 'Ulster Defence Association'. All of those groups
would be described as 'terrorists' in any other context by our
completely-fair-and-not-remotely-imbalanced-oh-dear-me-no media.

Regarding the DUP, it was founded by Ian Paisley (Snr.) because the
'Official' Ulster Unionist Party wasn't extreme enough for him, in the
same way that he founded his own sect because the one he was in was
similarly insufficiently fundy.

(In the name of fairness, I should remark that - many years later -
Paisley Snr. was a key player in the bringing of something akin to peace
in the Sax Cointies, and formed a remarkable political and personal
relationship with the also-now-deceased Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin
politician and ex-Provisional IRA man)).

>
> [*] I've been reading about Irish accents -
> meaning the symbols over letters in Gaelic.
> Just vowels, I think. The Royal Mail seems to be
> determined to ignore them.
>

Irish (*not* 'Gaelic', if you wouldn't mind; 'Gaelic' is the
sister-language spoken in western/north-western Scotland) has the 'fada'
- denoting a long vowel - as an acute accent, whereas the same thing in
Gaelic is marked with a grave.

The Royal Mail - being a thoroughly English institution, and to which,
therefore, the concept of diacritics is a total mystery - can't handle
any accents at all, especially not the circumflex accents we have in
Cymraeg, which can appear over any of the seven vowels. (4)


(1) Pro-Irish people with guns and bombs are "republican terrorists",
whilst pro-Brit people with guns and bombs are "loyalist (2)
paramilitaries (3)"

(2) Never "Unionist"

(3) Never "terrorists"

(4) a, e, i, o, u, w, y

Nigel Stapley

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 7:59:03 AM6/16/17
to
On 16/06/2017 11:41, real_gri...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

>
> Unfortunately in the modern world we all have to deal with terrorists, be it
> old ANC, EOKA, IRA, PFLP members or any other group or their financiers, face
> it for years the US financed and armed the IRA, and also those who would become
> Al-Qaeda, times change, yesterdays ally is tomorrows enemy and vice a versa

The point here is that, under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement,
the Imperial Government is obliged to stay utterly neutral between the
two 'communities' in NornIrn. By trying to set up a spatchcock
'understanding' with the DUP - a party of climate-change-denying,
women's-rights-limiting, homophobic, racist, religiously-sectarian
bigots - May is undermining the Agreement, and the wretched android
clearly thinks that this - which is likely to lead to a resumption of
violence - is 'a price worth paying' for keeping her sorry self in office.

>
> What any of this has to do with AFP is beyond me though
>
>

This is a*f*p, where we discuss anything, any time (or would, if there
were still enough of us here to conduct anything other than a series of
monologues). For strictly Pratchett-related matters, there is
alt.*books*.pratchett, which has even fewer posts.

Brian Howlett

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 7:46:32 PM6/16/17
to
On 16 Jun, real_gri...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> 15 June 2017 at 17:25, Lesley Weston wrote:
> Re: -[I]- Is anyone still here? (at least in part)

>>Indeed! It also makes the UK Tories the consorts of terrorists.

> Unfortunately in the modern world we all have to deal with terrorists,
> be it old ANC, EOKA, IRA, PFLP members or any other group or their
> financiers, face it for years the US financed and armed the IRA, and
> also those who would become Al-Qaeda, times change, yesterdays ally is
> tomorrows enemy and vice a versa

Brian: Excuse me. Are you the Judean People's Front?

Reg: Fuck off! 'Judean People's Front'. We're the People's Front of
Judea! 'Judean People's Front'.

Francis: Wankers.

> What any of this has to do with AFP is beyond me though

Er, you have been here before, haven't you?
--
Brian Howlett - Email to From: address deleted unseen
-------------------------------------------------------------
You possess a mind not only twisted, but actually sprained...

real_gri...@yahoo.co.uk

unread,
Jun 17, 2017, 12:37:25 AM6/17/17
to
17 June 2017 at 0:44, Brian Howlett wrote:
Re: -[I]- Is anyone still here? (at least in part)

>Brian: Excuse me. Are you the Judean People's Front?

>Reg: Fuck off! 'Judean People's Front'. We're the People's Front of
>Judea! 'Judean People's Front'.

>Francis: Wankers.

>> What any of this has to do with AFP is beyond me though

>Er, you have been here before, haven't you?

Yeh, I have, but even this post (fun as it is) would have seemed more Pratchett
if it used

"You want the Elucidated Brethren of the Ebon Night. Three doors down."
"Who're you, then?"
"We're the Illuminated and Ancient Brethren of Ee."


Paul .Jamison

unread,
Jun 17, 2017, 1:19:50 PM6/17/17
to
Well, once in a while AFP posts actually have something to do with Sir Pterry and his oeuvre (sp?), but quite often they're irrelevant.

Ah, for the days of tagging posts.

Brian Howlett

unread,
Jun 17, 2017, 1:33:26 PM6/17/17
to
On 17 Jun, "Paul .Jamison" <paul...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Ah, for the days of tagging posts.

You will, of course, have noted that this entire thread is tagged
[I]...
--
Brian Howlett - Email to From: address deleted unseen
----------------------------------------------------------------
Had this been an actual emergency, we would have fled in terror,
and you would not have been informed...

Richard Bos

unread,
Jun 17, 2017, 1:52:49 PM6/17/17
to
Brian Howlett <news-s...@brianhowlett.me.uk> wrote:

> On 17 Jun, "Paul .Jamison" <paul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Ah, for the days of tagging posts.
>
> You will, of course, have noted that this entire thread is tagged
> [I]...

And that I remembered to tag mine [R]!

Richard

p. pinto

unread,
Jun 17, 2017, 7:29:59 PM6/17/17
to
- boo!

- looking for a little levity, if not necessarily any le(a)vening -
and prob'ly (almost srppnt.ly) no (lord) leven at all (though levens
bridge is just a little up the road thataway), close by levens hall,
it struck yr hmbl srppnt. that many a thread could, and perhaps even
should, be marked [I] not for irrelevance, but for irreverence.

- in an only slightly more just world, the title "your irreverence"
would be one bothered highly regarded, and greatly sought after...

- love, ppint.
--
'tis due to ppinqueans that set light
to nelson's hat
it glows at night

larry

unread,
Jun 17, 2017, 9:41:57 PM6/17/17
to
On 2017-06-17, p. pinto <ppin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> - boo!
>
> - looking for a little levity, if not necessarily any le(a)vening -
> and prob'ly (almost srppnt.ly) no (lord) leven at all (though levens
> bridge is just a little up the road thataway), close by levens hall,
> it struck yr hmbl srppnt. that many a thread could, and perhaps even
> should, be marked [I] not for irrelevance, but for irreverence.
>
> - in an only slightly more just world, the title "your irreverence"
> would be one bothered highly regarded, and greatly sought after...
>
> - love, ppint.

'f you are the 'leventh, oi must be the twelft.

Paul .Jamison

unread,
Jun 18, 2017, 12:44:21 PM6/18/17
to
On Saturday, June 17, 2017 at 12:33:26 PM UTC-5, Brian Howlett wrote:

> On 17 Jun, "Paul .Jamison" <paul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Ah, for the days of tagging posts.
>
> You will, of course, have noted that this entire thread is tagged
> [I]...
> --
Yes, I did. That occurred to me right after I posted. Such is life.

Paul

larry

unread,
Jun 26, 2017, 8:09:20 AM6/26/17
to
It has now passed the 22nd. What's happened in the Clark soap opera?

Lewis

unread,
Jun 26, 2017, 10:40:14 AM6/26/17
to
It was rather glorious to be in London on teh day after the election.
The headlines in amny of the papers were hilarious and the stunning
defeat of May will, I'm quite sure, lead to the end of her political
career rather shortly.

A mere month ago the Bloody Tories were expected to gain 100 seats in
Parliament and instead they lost control of parliament and are allying
with an anti-science fringe nutter party to try to retain some control.

>>
>> While the elected president is't the biggest Know-Nothing to
>> hold the post, he is destined to disappoint just about all comers.
>> Both the ladies are hanging onto power by the least of mandates, I see.

> Them ain't no ladies...

> Clark will be gone on the 22nd, which is the longest she can delay the
> Throne Speech and the consequent No Confidence vote. I had hoped she
> would show more class by gracefully accepting reality and conceding,
> though I don't really know why I thought she would; she's a politician
> after all, and a right-wing one at that. But we still won't have the NDP
> Government that we voted for; instead we'll have the Green Government of
> just three MLAs that strategic voting brought down on us.

> May will (hopefully) not last much longer either. Her deal with the
> devil seems to be unpopular with everybody on all sides. And this
> horrible fire combined with the two terrorist attacks, all of them
> personally her fault, won't help. Without strategic voting in that case
> too, Jeremy Corbyn would be appointing his Cabinet right about now.

> And we can hope that Trump will be gone soon too.

You would think, but the GOP in the US doesn't seem to give a fuck what
Trump does, they will excuse it and ignore it all, regardless of how
clear his treason and hundreds of other illegal acts are, because they
are in control and they are going to fuck everything up as much as
possible. I can't see what their end-game is with pissing everybody
off, which makes me think there is going to be some more election
hacking and voter purging in front of the 2018 elections. If they can
disenfranchise all the non-Republicans then they can finally establish
their desired one (white) man, one vote theocracy. Otherwise, they are
going to get completely fucked in 2018. And while the party is full fo
horribly evil vindictive murderous thugs, they are not all morons.

So I'm concerned.

> They seem to be taking an unconscionably long time about impeaching
> him; I guess they want to make quite sure their case is watertight
> before they proceed. I don't think strategic voting is responsible for
> that particular disaster, though.

No, they have zero interest in impeaching him. He is doing *exactly* what
they want.

--
"You've got to dance like nobody's watching." - Kathy Mattea

Lewis

unread,
Jun 26, 2017, 10:46:30 AM6/26/17
to
The latest I heard is she has essentially paid the DUP £1 billion for
their tepid support. Because of course it is more important that she
remain in power than she consider the future of her country.

But then again, she is a Tory.

--
I intend to live forever. So far, so good.

Richard Bos

unread,
Jun 26, 2017, 11:47:29 AM6/26/17
to
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <ohsg2a$r83$1...@dont-email.me> Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> > I meant the UK election, which had just happened when I posted that, but
> > any of them would do. Also France and the Netherlands, though in each of
> > those those countries sanity prevailed and a properly-elected Government
> > is carrying on with running the country.
>
> It was rather glorious to be in London on teh day after the election.
> The headlines in amny of the papers were hilarious and the stunning
> defeat of May will, I'm quite sure, lead to the end of her political
> career rather shortly.

"Stunning defeat"... they're still the largest party by quite a margin.
They and the DUP are a majority. Labour and _all_ other parties together
except the DUP - are not! Sure, the Tories will have to form a minority
cabinet. Sure, Labour have been trounced less badly than it was the last
two times. But make no mistake, it was still Labour who were trounced,
not the Tories.

> A mere month ago the Bloody Tories were expected to gain 100 seats in
> Parliament and instead they lost control of parliament and are allying
> with an anti-science fringe nutter party to try to retain some control.

_Retain_ control. Not _regain_ control. All political posturing and
wish-fulfilment aside, it's still May who is in control, not Corbyn. Her
control may be shaky, but she does have it, and Corbyn has a smug look
on his face. It may be a deservedly smug look, but it _is_ no more than
a smug look.

> > They seem to be taking an unconscionably long time about impeaching
> > him; I guess they want to make quite sure their case is watertight
> > before they proceed. I don't think strategic voting is responsible for
> > that particular disaster, though.
>
> No, they have zero interest in impeaching him. He is doing *exactly* what
> they want.

Similarly, nobody in the Tory party but the greatest self-delusional
fool wants to oust May. You're stuck with her. Boris won't replace her,
Gove won't replace her - yet, the back-stabbing toad, Leadsome may try
to replace her but won't succeed, and Corbyn won't get a chance to
replace her for a good few years yet.

Good luck with your Brexit...

Richadr

Dave Yeo

unread,
Jun 26, 2017, 12:04:20 PM6/26/17
to
They elected a speaker and read a throne speech that involved a radical
left turn and sounded like what the opposition would put in a throne
speech. Legislature is back today where a non-confidence vote is
expected to be put forward but fail due to needing all the members of
the legislature to agree. Debate will proceed on the throne speech and
then it is expected to be voted down bringing Clarke's government down.
The Lieutenant-Governor is expected to invite the opposition parties to
try to form a government (she could dissolve the Legislature forcing
another election), the speaker to resign and the opposition electing a
new speaker leaving the legislature divided 43-43+the speaker who is
supposed to be non-partisan but has the tie breaking vote. Weird times
and much unwritten constitutional law.
Dave

Lewis

unread,
Jun 26, 2017, 6:24:05 PM6/26/17
to
In message <59512a1...@news.xs4all.nl> Richard Bos <ral...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>> In message <ohsg2a$r83$1...@dont-email.me> Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>> > I meant the UK election, which had just happened when I posted that, but
>> > any of them would do. Also France and the Netherlands, though in each of
>> > those those countries sanity prevailed and a properly-elected Government
>> > is carrying on with running the country.
>>
>> It was rather glorious to be in London on teh day after the election.
>> The headlines in amny of the papers were hilarious and the stunning
>> defeat of May will, I'm quite sure, lead to the end of her political
>> career rather shortly.

> "Stunning defeat"... they're still the largest party by quite a margin.

It was a stunning defeat.

> They and the DUP are a majority. Labour and _all_ other parties together
> except the DUP - are not! Sure, the Tories will have to form a minority
> cabinet. Sure, Labour have been trounced less badly than it was the last
> two times. But make no mistake, it was still Labour who were trounced,
> not the Tories.

That is factually incorrect. Labor gained something like 20 seats. The
Tories were expected to make *HUGE* gains and May was already positioning
herself as the second-coming of Thatcher. Even on the day before the
election the expectation was they would gain 30+ seats.

>> A mere month ago the Bloody Tories were expected to gain 100 seats in
>> Parliament and instead they lost control of parliament and are allying
>> with an anti-science fringe nutter party to try to retain some control.

> _Retain_ control. Not _regain_ control. All political posturing and
> wish-fulfilment aside, it's still May who is in control, not Corbyn. Her
> control may be shaky, but she does have it, and Corbyn has a smug look
> on his face. It may be a deservedly smug look, but it _is_ no more than
>y a smug look.

She has control for now, but she is a wounded stag limping through the
forest and the hounds are on her. She is not going to last. She paid £1
billion to keep her PMship. For now.

> Good luck with your Brexit...

It's not my Brexit, but if May continues on pushing through Brexit it
will be the end of Great Britain. The economy is already on the shitpile
and it will be so much worse. I'm trying to remember the reported
numbers, but the headline was "Brexit has already made Britain poorer"
and the number representing lost wealth and value was large.

May has already show he true colors when she said that discarding human
rights would we worth it to preserve Brexit. She seem hell-bent on
ripping up the Good Friday accord and pissing off Europe enough that
people will have nothing to do with the UK.

So, funny story. When I was going through customs in Denmark, I think it
was, the customs agent asked how long I was in Europe for and I replied
"20 days. Well, does the UK still count?" and he laughed and said, "No,
not really." "OK then, 17 days and 3 days in England."

Great Britain is vastly overestimating their importance to the rest of
Europe. No one there seemed to care at all about the UK, the election, or
Brexit and the only comments I heard were, "the sooner they leave, the
better."

When Europe stops buying British product, Britain will crater.

--
NON-FLAMMABLE IS NOT A CHALLENGE Bart chalkboard Ep. BABF13

Richard Bos

unread,
Jun 27, 2017, 12:24:20 PM6/27/17
to
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <59512a1...@news.xs4all.nl> Richard Bos <ral...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> > Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
> >> It was rather glorious to be in London on teh day after the election.
> >> The headlines in amny of the papers were hilarious and the stunning
> >> defeat of May will, I'm quite sure, lead to the end of her political
> >> career rather shortly.
>
> > "Stunning defeat"... they're still the largest party by quite a margin.
>
> It was a stunning defeat.

Nonsense. It was a victory by a smaller margin than they hoped for, but
it was still a victory. Or would you also claim that Culloden was a
stunning defeat for the English, only because they didn't massacre the
Scots quite as badly as at Flodden?

> > They and the DUP are a majority. Labour and _all_ other parties together
> > except the DUP - are not! Sure, the Tories will have to form a minority
> > cabinet. Sure, Labour have been trounced less badly than it was the last
> > two times. But make no mistake, it was still Labour who were trounced,
> > not the Tories.
>
> That is factually incorrect. Labor gained something like 20 seats. The
> Tories were expected to make *HUGE* gains and May was already positioning
> herself as the second-coming of Thatcher. Even on the day before the
> election the expectation was they would gain 30+ seats.

It may be emotionally incorrect - you're clearly getting quite emotional
over this - but it is factually 100% correct that the Conservatives have
more seats than Labour, as well as a larger percentage of the vote. It's
factually correct that Labour could not form a majority cabinet without
the DUP; in fact, they'd need the SNP _and_ the LibDems _and_ DUP _and_
Sinn Féin (fat chance!) to get to 326. They can't even make it without
Sinn Féin! (It's also factually correct that *"Labor" is a spelling
mistake...)
Corbyn may claim a moral victory, but moral victories count for
absolutely nothing until the next election. Right now, the Conservatives
have the upper hand. They won. They didn't win as badly as they'd have
liked to, but they won. Corbyn's moral victory has gained him the right
to lead Her Majesty's Republican Opposition, nothing more.

> >> A mere month ago the Bloody Tories were expected to gain 100 seats in
> >> Parliament and instead they lost control of parliament and are allying
> >> with an anti-science fringe nutter party to try to retain some control.
>
> > _Retain_ control. Not _regain_ control. All political posturing and
> > wish-fulfilment aside, it's still May who is in control, not Corbyn. Her
> > control may be shaky, but she does have it, and Corbyn has a smug look
> > on his face. It may be a deservedly smug look, but it _is_ no more than
> >y a smug look.
>
> She has control for now, but she is a wounded stag limping through the
> forest and the hounds are on her. She is not going to last.

Please. Don't you think she looks tired? Yes, she does. So does Corbyn,
the poor little anemic tofu-eater. But none of that matters. What
matters is not that May is PM, but that the Tories form the government.
Who do you think is going to challenge her - _and_ succeed?
Not Boris, not Gove, not Leadsom, not Rudd. Certainly not Corbyn,
Sturgeon, or Nigelle Farrage. Because, however much it may pain you, the
Conservatives _won this election_ and they are forming the government.

No, the Tories are in power - tenuous power, but that's still more than
Labour has had for decades, unless you count BLiar&Broon as Labour which
I don't - and they'll stay in power until the next election. They were
stupid enough to call this one, I don't think they'll be that stupid
again any time soon.
Any challence to May will, therefore, have to come from within her own
party. And who of that self-serving lot is daft enough to take on the
wall of pain she's facing? None of them, I don't think, and those that
might won't succeed. And then, even if one does - it's still a Tory in
power, not your beloved pipe cleaner.

> It's not my Brexit, but if May continues on pushing through Brexit it
> will be the end of Great Britain. The economy is already on the shitpile
> and it will be so much worse. I'm trying to remember the reported
> numbers, but the headline was "Brexit has already made Britain poorer"
> and the number representing lost wealth and value was large.

I wouldn't trust those numbers until Brexit has come and gone, but it's
certainly true that Brexit was an own goal. But it was an own goal
before this election, as well.

> May has already show he true colors when she said that discarding human
> rights would we worth it to preserve Brexit.

Oh, she's shown her true colours long before that. A pure psychopath,
bent only on preserving her own hide. Selfish and arrogant - a true
Conservative.

> Great Britain is vastly overestimating their importance to the rest of
> Europe. No one there seemed to care at all about the UK, the election, or
> Brexit and the only comments I heard were, "the sooner they leave, the
> better."
>
> When Europe stops buying British product, Britain will crater.

Those, certainly, are true. And the Tories have scored a Pyrrhic
victory. But at the Brexit referendum, not at this election.

Richard

Robert Carnegie

unread,
Jun 27, 2017, 2:54:53 PM6/27/17
to
UK election: it was a draw. Nobody won.

As you know, what follows, in this situation,
is penalties.

Lewis

unread,
Jun 29, 2017, 11:50:44 AM6/29/17
to
In message <59528663...@news.xs4all.nl> Richard Bos <ral...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>> In message <59512a1...@news.xs4all.nl> Richard Bos <ral...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> > Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>>
>> >> It was rather glorious to be in London on teh day after the election.
>> >> The headlines in amny of the papers were hilarious and the stunning
>> >> defeat of May will, I'm quite sure, lead to the end of her political
>> >> career rather shortly.
>>
>> > "Stunning defeat"... they're still the largest party by quite a margin.
>>
>> It was a stunning defeat.

> Nonsense. It was a victory by a smaller margin than they hoped for,

Spin it however you want. She called a snap election hoping to solidify
her position and instead got her ass kicked. You can call it a win if
you are that desperate, but it was not. At all. NO ONE is calling it a
win.

> It may be emotionally incorrect - you're clearly getting quite emotional
> over this

Oh, fuck off.

--
Nothing like grilling a kosher dog over human hair to bring out the
subtle flavors.

real_gri...@yahoo.co.uk

unread,
Jun 29, 2017, 12:45:43 PM6/29/17
to
29 June 2017 at 15:46, Lewis wrote:
Re: -[I]- Is anyone still here? (at least in part)

Correct me if I´m wrong, but under our present system (imperfect as it may be)
doesn´t the largest seat block have the right to (try to) form a government?
and from what I see the Tories have 55 more seats than their closest rivals,
Labour would have to join with not only the Democratic Unionist Party (as has
been decried here by others) but also Scottish National Party & Liberal
Democrat to get a 2 seat lead (but still not a true majority), or mix and match
from the remaining 16 seats (one of which is the speaker)

So what do those who oppose the current ruling party want to do, keep on voting
until they get their own way?


Nigel Stapley

unread,
Jun 29, 2017, 2:35:24 PM6/29/17
to
Isn't it lovely to see the good old ways returning to afp? <g, d, r>

Robert Carnegie

unread,
Jun 30, 2017, 6:40:07 AM6/30/17
to
It's been tried in the past.

Or members could (voluntarily) switch parties.

The Queen governs. Time was, anyone in Parliament
could pop up to the palace and offer to form a
government, the hard part being to do it.
If there's a specific rule now, I don't know it.

real_gri...@yahoo.co.uk

unread,
Jun 30, 2017, 8:46:49 AM6/30/17
to
30 June 2017 at 3:40, Robert Carnegie wrote:
Re: -[I]- Is anyone still here? (at least in part)

>On Thursday, 29 June 2017 17:45:43 UTC+1, real_gri...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

>> So what do those who oppose the current ruling party want to do, keep on voting
>> until they get their own way?

>It's been tried in the past.

Yeh seen that (a good whoule back though) in a bye elections where a fringe
party got the result and they re-run it to get a main line party in

>Or members could (voluntarily) switch parties.

Not in any numbers since the days of "The Gang of four" (That´s the SDP for
those who weren´t about then)

>The Queen governs. Time was, anyone in Parliament could pop up to the palace
>and offer to form a government, the hard part being to do it. If there's a
>specific rule now, I don't know it.

Don´t "think" there is a Rule as such, but logistics would seem to point to the
largest block having the best chance, of cause they could even have gone for a
minority government, as for Labour they don´t seem to be able to get on with
their own party let alone another


Daniel Goldsmith

unread,
Jul 1, 2017, 3:07:45 PM7/1/17
to
On 2017-06-29, Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <59528663...@news.xs4all.nl> Richard Bos <ral...@xs4all.nl>
> wrote:
>> Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
>>> It was a stunning defeat.
>
>> Nonsense. It was a victory by a smaller margin than they hoped for,
>
> Spin it however you want. She called a snap election hoping to solidify
> her position and instead got her ass kicked. You can call it a win if
> you are that desperate, but it was not. At all. NO ONE is calling it a
> win.

Probably more important than the seat count (outside of, you know, the
Parliament) was the demographics of the result.

Massive youth turnout, no gains for the tories in the labour marginals
that Tess spent the campaign in, complete collapse of UKIP not turning
into massive gains for the tories, collapse of tory vote among the more
educated population, strategic voting arrangements (where they were
used) worked far better than expected.

All of that makes for tough reading down at Tory Central, and those
are long-term demographics which are not beneficial to their future
prospects.

Couple that with the utter and total collapse of the popular vote
(blowing a 24% Poll lead is *unheard* of), made it all a very nice
and enjoyable exercise from this remove, and the icing was smartly
delivered in Sheffield-Hallam when the odious wretch Clegg was albeit
belatedly finished off politically.

>> It may be emotionally incorrect - you're clearly getting quite emotional
>> over this
>
> Oh, fuck off.
>

Ah, afp, how I've missed you.

--
Protected by their camouflage, the New International Militant Hedgehogs
__o __o __o __o (NIMH) Approach their Target
'/ '/ '/ '/ _____________________________________________________
*Daniel Goldsmith*

real_gri...@yahoo.co.uk

unread,
Jul 1, 2017, 5:07:42 PM7/1/17
to
01 July 2017 at 19:03, Daniel Goldsmith wrote:
Re: -[I]- Is anyone still here? (at least in part)

>Probably more important than the seat count (outside of, you know, the
>Parliament) was the demographics of the result.

>Massive youth turnout, no gains for the tories in the labour marginals that
>Tess spent the campaign in, complete collapse of UKIP

Unfortunately most minor UK parties (there are too many to list) seem to have a
short (effective) life span, they come and they go again, maybe if one of the
big boys honour their promise to bring in PR "when we come to power" the
situation will change but I´m not holding my breath on any of them, the system
is stacked against them, and even if they have good intent and policies the
electorate know that they cant ever win


steveski

unread,
Jul 1, 2017, 5:27:39 PM7/1/17
to
On Sat, 01 Jul 2017 22:07:39 +0100, real_grizz_adams wrote:

> 01 July 2017 at 19:03, Daniel Goldsmith wrote:
> Re: -[I]- Is anyone still here? (at least in part)
>
>>Probably more important than the seat count (outside of, you know, the
>>Parliament) was the demographics of the result.
>
>>Massive youth turnout, no gains for the tories in the labour marginals
>>that Tess spent the campaign in, complete collapse of UKIP
>
> Unfortunately most minor UK parties (there are too many to list)

If I'd lived in his constituency, I'd definitely have voted for Lord
Buckethead. Or Screaming Lord Sutch (Mayherestinpeace).

It's so boring to have to simply spoil your ballot paper . . .

Long live the protest vote :-)

--
Steveski

Robert Carnegie

unread,
Jul 1, 2017, 6:03:42 PM7/1/17
to
The 2010 Coalition offered a version of PR.
It was defeated in a referendum in 2011.

Before that, Gordon Brown considered installing
PR - presumably to be used in the 2010 election,
which in fact his party lost(ish) by first past
the post.

Richard Bos

unread,
Jul 3, 2017, 1:33:49 PM7/3/17
to
Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, 1 July 2017 22:07:42 UTC+1, real_gri...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

> > Unfortunately most minor UK parties (there are too many to list) seem to =
> have a=20
> > short (effective) life span, they come and they go again, maybe if one of=
> the=20
> > big boys honour their promise to bring in PR "when we come to power" the=

Neither of the big boys have made that promise, AFAIAA. It would
certainly go directly against their own best interests.

> > situation will change but I=C2=B4m not holding my breath on any of them, =
> the system=20
> > is stacked against them, and even if they have good intent and policies t=
> he=20
> > electorate know that they cant ever win
>
> The 2010 Coalition offered a version of PR.

There was no coalition in 2010. A coalition is a temporary relationship
between political parties. What England had in 2010 was Cleggo fagging
for Pig-face. Don't let the public school boys convince you that fagging
is a real relationship, or that that was a coalition.

> It was defeated in a referendum in 2011.

Of course. The English don't want a democracy, they're too fond of their
feudal barons.

Richard

real_gri...@yahoo.co.uk

unread,
Jul 3, 2017, 2:44:53 PM7/3/17
to
03 July 2017 at 17:33, Richard Bos wrote:
Re: -[I]- Is anyone still here? (at least in part)

>Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:

>Neither of the big boys have made that promise, AFAIAA. It would
>certainly go directly against their own best interests.

Which is why they promise it while in oppression (Labour 2001 for example) and
renege when they are in power, or play the double bluff

Promise a referendum on PR that way those in favour vote for them and those
against assume the majority won´t vote to change the system that got them to
power or the referendum won´t happen or will fail, much the same as Brexit but
they misjudged that one, and just watch then all back peddle now

Dave Yeo

unread,
Jul 3, 2017, 8:36:12 PM7/3/17
to
Same thing happened in Canada, Trudeau promised no more first past the
post elections and then reneged, claimed it was to complicated, there
was also the question of whether to have a referendum.
Here in BC, we have had referendums on it (and even proportional
representation for one election way back, the winner changed it back),
last one got 59%, just shy of the 60% threshold the government put on it.
Currently our minority government needs the support of the Greens, who
are very pro proportional representation. They wanted to introduce it
and then have a referendum. The compromise is to have a referendum in
1.5-2 years. This will also encourage the Greens