OT: BBC bias

[Bill Wright]

Anyone who doubts that the BBC has an anti-Trump, anti-Brexit agenda
should listen on iPlayer to today's episode of The Cold Swedish Winter.

Bill

[Cursitor Doom]

On Fri, 01 Sep 2017 14:37:09 +0000, Jethro_uk wrote:

> From what I have seen and heard, the BBC is backing Brexit to the hilt
> by uncritically quoting DD, LF and BJ ...

Wow! You're so astoundingly ignorant!



--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 01/09/17 17:22, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Sep 2017 14:37:09 +0000, Jethro_uk wrote:
>
>> From what I have seen and heard, the BBC is backing Brexit to the hilt
>> by uncritically quoting DD, LF and BJ ...
>
> Wow! You're so astoundingly ignorant!
>
>
>

BBC has completely givcen up even pretending its neutral

Its full on left wing AgitProp all the way.

--
“it should be clear by now to everyone that activist environmentalism
(or environmental activism) is becoming a general ideology about humans,
about their freedom, about the relationship between the individual and
the state, and about the manipulation of people under the guise of a
'noble' idea. It is not an honest pursuit of 'sustainable development,'
a matter of elementary environmental protection, or a search for
rational mechanisms designed to achieve a healthy environment. Yet
things do occur that make you shake your head and remind yourself that
you live neither in Joseph Stalin’s Communist era, nor in the Orwellian
utopia of 1984.”

Vaclav Klaus

[Martin Brown]

On 01/09/2017 15:37, Jethro_uk wrote:

> From what I have seen and heard, the BBC is backing Brexit to the hilt by
> uncritically quoting DD, LF and BJ ...

You have it wrong - they are trying hard to derail Brexit by

uncritically quoting DD, LF and BJ.

The three stooges don't require the BBC to criticise them to demonstrate
how incoherent they are on the how, what and why of Brexit.

The only thing the government can agree on is "Brexit means Brexit".
(whatever than means)

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[dennis@home]

That's not bias its just what is actually happening.

If you have any good news about brexit try posting it!

[TimW]

It's a leaf from the Donald Trump playbook - anything bad just blame the
media for reporting it. Brexit is a fuck up before it has begun. that's
just a fact.
TW

[bm]

"TimW" <t...@mysurname.me.uk> wrote in message
news:ooc7ht$556$1...@dont-email.me...

This is a tad biased but might be worth a read -
http://brexitcentral.com/today/brexit-news-friday-1-september/
You're worrying far too much.

[GB]

> Brexit is a fuck up before it has begun. that's
> just a fact.

The best analogy I can think of is taking a big bag of sugar and a big
bag of salt. Then mixing them up together. Then the electorate votes
that somebody has to pick them apart again.

[Capitol]

Not being governed by an unelected quango in Brussels
Higher wages for British workers
Reduced immigration.
Lower EU taxes.
Higher UK production and exports

There's a few to be getting on with!

[Capitol]

It's not just the BBC, Sky have removed Fox News from their line up for
being Trump supporters. I now watch Aljazeera to get better quality news
reporting.

[dennis@home]

On 01/09/2017 21:00, Capitol wrote:
> dennis@home wrote:
>> On 01/09/2017 14:53, Bill Wright wrote:
>>> Anyone who doubts that the BBC has an anti-Trump, anti-Brexit agenda
>>> should listen on iPlayer to today's episode of The Cold Swedish Winter.
>>>
>>> Bill
>>
>> That's not bias its just what is actually happening.
>>
>> If you have any good news about brexit try posting it!
>>
>
>     Not being governed by an unelected quango in Brussels

Not true!

>     Higher wages for British workers

Not true!

>     Reduced immigration.

Maybe ATM.

>     Lower EU taxes.

Not rue!

>     Higher UK production and exports

Maybe but also higher prices.

>
> There's a few to be getting on with!

But only oneis true and we still have >70% of the immigration that we had.

Try some actual facts next.

[dennis@home]

They removed Fox because nobody watches it.

[Rod Speed]

"dennis@home" <den...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
news:59a99756$0$19979$b1db1813$d97f...@news.astraweb.com...

We've got some. The pound has sagged, good for
the economy like the sag in the euro was for Germany.

Barnier appears to be close to proclaiming that the
negotiations are useless and appears to have noticed
that Britain wont be paying any exit fee and Davis
hasn’t been stupid enough to agree to pay one.

[Fredxxx]

That doesn't sound a very good analogy.

Perhaps it is, where it suggests that we should never have allowed the
salt (developing countries) to join the EU, and that the grains will be
returned to their correctful place part over the passage of time?

[Cursitor Doom]

On Fri, 01 Sep 2017 18:22:30 +0100, dennis@home wrote:


> If you have any good news about brexit try posting it!

Well, here goes...
The talks between Britain and the EU broke up today without agreement.
Let's pray this continues to be the case for the next 18 months (or
whatever it is) and we revert to WTO rules having handed over precisely
*zero* pounds to these profligate, blood-sucking parasites.

[Fredxxx]

On 01/09/2017 21:10, dennis@home wrote:
> On 01/09/2017 21:00, Capitol wrote:
>> dennis@home wrote:
>>> On 01/09/2017 14:53, Bill Wright wrote:
>>>> Anyone who doubts that the BBC has an anti-Trump, anti-Brexit agenda
>>>> should listen on iPlayer to today's episode of The Cold Swedish Winter.
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>
>>> That's not bias its just what is actually happening.
>>>
>>> If you have any good news about brexit try posting it!
>>>
>>
>> Not being governed by an unelected quango in Brussels
>
> Not true!

Very true.

>
>> Higher wages for British workers
>
> Not true!

Its already happening. Immigration has single handedly made uk wages
stagnate over the past 10 years. That is now changing.

>> Reduced immigration.
>
> Maybe ATM.
>
>> Lower EU taxes.
>
> Not rue!

I assume you meant 'true'. Are you suggesting we will still be
shovelling £billions to Brussels?

For many that was the reason for Brexit. Even Remoaners don't want to
pay EU taxes.

>> Higher UK production and exports
>
> Maybe but also higher prices.
>
>>
>> There's a few to be getting on with!
>
> But only oneis true and we still have >70% of the immigration that we had.

But won't keep continuing to outstrip house building and other
infrastructure limits.

> Try some actual facts next.

I've not see the Remoan camp come up with anything, just project fear.
>
>

[Cursitor Doom]

On Fri, 01 Sep 2017 21:02:52 +0100, Capitol wrote:

> It's not just the BBC, Sky have removed Fox News from their line
up for
> being Trump supporters. I now watch Aljazeera to get better quality news
> reporting.

RT is a pretty damn good alternative news source, too. Certainly a
million times better than the fake news outfits, BBC/CNN/NBC etc.

[JoeJoe]

With only one exception - the BBC is financed by the general public
through what is essentially a tax, and is bound, by it's charter, to
remain unbiased and objective.

[Indy Jess John]

On 01/09/2017 21:37, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Sep 2017 18:22:30 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
>
>
>> If you have any good news about brexit try posting it!
>
> Well, here goes...
> The talks between Britain and the EU broke up today without agreement.
> Let's pray this continues to be the case for the next 18 months (or
> whatever it is) and we revert to WTO rules having handed over precisely
> *zero* pounds to these profligate, blood-sucking parasites.
>
>
>

+1

I recommend telling the EU that there will be no further meetings until
they are prepared to discuss win-win options.

I bet the EU cracks before Britain does.

Jim

[alan_m]

On 01/09/2017 19:45, GB wrote:

Sugar is soluble in alcohols while salt is not. Simply mix the two in
alcohol and filter the solution to get the salt. Then evaporate the
alcohol sugar mixture and you will be left with the sugar.


--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

[Graham.]

On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 19:45:10 +0100, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com>
wrote:

IRTA "electrolyte"
--

Graham.
%Profound_observation%

[Bob Eager]

Why should they bother? They can do without us, and (according to the
Lievers) we can do without them.

Why are the Lievers bothered? Just go with a hard Brexit. Of course, the
AAA rating will go when the bill isn't paid, but I'm sure they've thought
of that...

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <oobop4$1q3d$1...@gioia.aioe.org>,

Bill Wright <wrights...@f2s.com> wrote:
> Anyone who doubts that the BBC has an anti-Trump, anti-Brexit agenda
> should listen on iPlayer to today's episode of The Cold Swedish Winter.

So by that I take it you are pro Trump? Figures...

--
*If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular?

Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[bm]

"Bob Eager" <news...@eager.cx> wrote in message
news:f0u7nbF...@mid.individual.net...

> On Fri, 01 Sep 2017 22:33:38 +0100, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
>> On 01/09/2017 21:37, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>> On Fri, 01 Sep 2017 18:22:30 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> If you have any good news about brexit try posting it!
>>>
>>> Well, here goes...
>>> The talks between Britain and the EU broke up today without agreement.
>>> Let's pray this continues to be the case for the next 18 months (or
>>> whatever it is) and we revert to WTO rules having handed over precisely
>>> *zero* pounds to these profligate, blood-sucking parasites.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> +1
>>
>> I recommend telling the EU that there will be no further meetings until
>> they are prepared to discuss win-win options.
>>
>> I bet the EU cracks before Britain does.
>
> Why should they bother? They can do without us, and (according to the
> Lievers) we can do without them.
>
> Why are the Lievers bothered? Just go with a hard Brexit. Of course, the
> AAA rating will go when the bill isn't paid, but I'm sure they've thought
> of that...

They know what they can do with their bill. They're crapping themselves
about where the money will come from.
We should let them continue to delay the 'talks' and let the time run out.
I don't believe that Davis will be intimidated by them.
I fail to see why 'everyone' seems to be shit scared of leaving.

As I posted earlier -

This is a tad biased but might be worth a read -
http://brexitcentral.com/today/brexit-news-friday-1-september/

We're dealing with kindergarten inmates and nest featherers.

[alan_m]

On 02/09/2017 00:10, Bob Eager wrote:

> Why are the Lievers bothered? Just go with a hard Brexit. Of course, the
> AAA rating will go when the bill isn't paid, but I'm sure they've thought
> of that...
>

Has the UK still got a AAA rating? We lost the AAA rating with one of
the agencies long before the referendum.

[Bob Eager]

On Sat, 02 Sep 2017 01:17:14 +0100, alan_m wrote:

> On 02/09/2017 00:10, Bob Eager wrote:
>
>> Why are the Lievers bothered? Just go with a hard Brexit. Of course,
>> the AAA rating will go when the bill isn't paid, but I'm sure they've
>> thought of that...
>>
>>
> Has the UK still got a AAA rating? We lost the AAA rating with one of
> the agencies long before the referendum.

We lost the Moody one, I think. That will go down even further, but that
won't matter according to Lievers.

We do have another one - for now.

[Bill Wright]

On 01/09/2017 21:02, Capitol wrote:

It's a sad thing to have to say, but I think we now need a right of
centre trustworthy news channel to balance the BBC, which is of course
left of centre.

Bill

[Bill Wright]

On 02/09/2017 00:26, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <oobop4$1q3d$1...@gioia.aioe.org>,
> Bill Wright <wrights...@f2s.com> wrote:
>> Anyone who doubts that the BBC has an anti-Trump, anti-Brexit agenda
>> should listen on iPlayer to today's episode of The Cold Swedish Winter.
>
> So by that I take it you are pro Trump? Figures...
>

Dave, as usual you miss the point. Pointing out anti-Trump bias does not
make a person a Trump supporter. For your information, there is as much
about Trump that I dislike as there is that I like.

Bill

[Rod Speed]

"dennis@home" <den...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message

news:59a9beaf$0$33289$b1db1813$1175...@news.astraweb.com...

> On 01/09/2017 21:00, Capitol wrote:
>> dennis@home wrote:
>>> On 01/09/2017 14:53, Bill Wright wrote:
>>>> Anyone who doubts that the BBC has an anti-Trump, anti-Brexit agenda
>>>> should listen on iPlayer to today's episode of The Cold Swedish Winter.
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>
>>> That's not bias its just what is actually happening.
>>>
>>> If you have any good news about brexit try posting it!
>>>
>>
>> Not being governed by an unelected quango in Brussels

> Not true!

Corse it is.

>> Higher wages for British workers

> Not true!

Remains to be seen. Likely true for the unskilled
who wont have hordes of unskilled EUians showing
up happy to work for the UK minimum wage or
lower because that’s much more than they can
get back where they are coming from.

>> Reduced immigration.

> Maybe ATM.

No maybe about it with EUians particularly.

>> Lower EU taxes.

> Not rue!

Corse it is. Britain is now free to send nothing to the EU

>> Higher UK production and exports

> Maybe

No maybe about it.

> but also higher prices.

Not for stuff produced in Britain.

>> There's a few to be getting on with!

> But only one is true

More of your bare faced lies.

> and we still have >70% of the immigration that we had.

You don’t know that either.

> Try some actual facts next.

He had plenty this time, remoaner.

[Bob Martin]

Very good!

[Bob Martin]

Whoosh!

[Indy Jess John]

On 02/09/2017 00:10, Bob Eager wrote:

> Why should they bother? They can do without us, and (according to the
> Lievers) we can do without them.

The EU needs our money. Britain is one of the nett contributors to the
EU budget, which is why the discussions so far have been all about how
much we will pay for a divorce settlement.

>
> Why are the Lievers bothered? Just go with a hard Brexit. Of course, the
> AAA rating will go when the bill isn't paid, but I'm sure they've thought
> of that...
>

I am not convinced that there is a bill to be paid. The EU's claim
includes all the EU Membership payments, which we will pay until the day
we leave, and as Britain part owns all the EU office estate we are due
back our investment in that, or else an ongoing rental payment for our
proportion of the buildings. The EU is pretending not to notice
financial commitments in *both* directions.

The Leavers are happy with a hard Brexit, on the whole. What
complicates matters is that the majority of MPs, regardless of party
allegiances, are Remainers, and this makes achieving a hard Brexit
pretty tricky. Unfortunately as Cameron was a staunch Remainer and
didn't imagine that the public could possibly want to change the status
quo, he didn't consider it necessary to write into the Referendum
legislation that the result would be compulsory.

This has given the Remainers hope that they can sabotage any agreement
to leave. Which is why I believe that there should be no negotiation
unless it is on a win-win basis. That way the default is that we go
without an agreement, taking our cheque book with us.

It is the potential loss of any form of divorce settlement that will
make the EU crack. That and the pressure from the EU suppliers who
export to Britain who don't want future Customs arrangements interfering
with their free trade prices. Britain doesn't really want that either,
but as we import far more than we export to the EU, Customs duties will
be financially beneficial to us as a nation though damaging to the
exporting companies who will have to have some compensation from the
financial benefits.

Jim

[Bob Martin]

in 1621818 20170901 223938 alan_m <ju...@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>On 01/09/2017 19:45, GB wrote:
>>> Brexit is a fuck up before it has begun. that's just a fact.
>>
>> The best analogy I can think of is taking a big bag of sugar and a big
>> bag of salt. Then mixing them up together. Then the electorate votes
>> that somebody has to pick them apart again.
>
>Sugar is soluble in alcohols while salt is not. Simply mix the two in
>alcohol and filter the solution to get the salt. Then evaporate the
>alcohol sugar mixture and you will be left with the sugar.

So everyone has to get pissed?

[alan_m]

On 02/09/2017 01:30, Bob Eager wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Sep 2017 01:17:14 +0100, alan_m wrote:
>
>> On 02/09/2017 00:10, Bob Eager wrote:
>>
>>> Why are the Lievers bothered? Just go with a hard Brexit. Of course,
>>> the AAA rating will go when the bill isn't paid, but I'm sure they've
>>> thought of that...
>>>
>>>
>> Has the UK still got a AAA rating? We lost the AAA rating with one of
>> the agencies long before the referendum.
>
> We lost the Moody one, I think. That will go down even further, but that
> won't matter according to Lievers.
>

Wasn't the reduction in our rating more to do with the Bank of England
announcing yet more quantitative easing (currency devaluation) to bail
out the banks who seem to reveal on a six monthly basis yet another
dodgy practice for which they are about to be fined billions of
dollars/pounds/euros?

Were the millions paid in bankers bonuses the proceeds of crime?

[Handsome Jack]

Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> posted

>Why are the Lievers bothered? Just go with a hard Brexit. Of course, the
>AAA rating will go when the bill isn't paid, but I'm sure they've thought
>of that...

Balls. You know nothing about credit ratings either.

--
Jack

[alan_m]

No, you just need to get your news from more than one source. Getting
the news from the BBC and an alternative which may have a completely
different agenda gives a flavour of both sides of a news article.

The BBC has got some very good journalists who do give a very balanced
reports on a news items but usually their stories are broadcast at some
obscure anti-social time of day and never seem to reach the main news
aimed at those with limited attention span.

[Brian Gaff]

Time was the only bias in use at the bbc was on their tape recorders.
Oh hang on a moment, they were always patronising and living in their own
world, so what is new? Its what you get in large organisations funded by
statutory laws on payment.

I personally think that there is no such thing as unbiased content. If it
was so even handed and safe, would anyone want to watch it? Newspapers are
all biased since the appeal to their own crowd.
Its the same with social media news, people just consume what they believe
themselves.
In the BBC and other broadcasters, it has to depend on those who make the
programs or commission them.

I mean the Archers gets a huge following for a radio soap, but its about as
lifelike as a plastic turd.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Bill Wright" <wrights...@f2s.com> wrote in message
news:oobop4$1q3d$1...@gioia.aioe.org...

[Norman Wells]

On 01/09/2017 22:39, alan_m wrote:
> On 01/09/2017 19:45, GB wrote:

>>> Brexit is a fuck up before it has begun. that's just a fact.
>>
>> The best analogy I can think of is taking a big bag of sugar and a big
>> bag of salt. Then mixing them up together. Then the electorate votes
>> that somebody has to pick them apart again.
>
> Sugar is soluble in alcohols while salt is not. Simply mix the two in
> alcohol

Isn't that what happens in Parliament now?

[Wilf]

Whatever its bias, and there is enough complaint from both left and
right for me to think the BBC is reasonably balanced actually, I'd far
prefer to listen to its version of the news than an organisation such as
Breitbart or RT, etc., which have particular axes to grind and political
points to make. In sum, the BBC is not perfect, for sure, but it's
pretty darn nearer perfect than anything else we've got or are likely to
get. Be careful what you wish for,

Wilf

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <o8CdndpJ_u_9ITTE...@brightview.co.uk>,

Capitol <sp...@whereva.uk> wrote:
> dennis@home wrote:

> > On 01/09/2017 14:53, Bill Wright wrote:
> >> Anyone who doubts that the BBC has an anti-Trump, anti-Brexit agenda
> >> should listen on iPlayer to today's episode of The Cold Swedish Winter.
> >>
> >> Bill
> >

> > That's not bias its just what is actually happening.
> >
> > If you have any good news about brexit try posting it!
> >

> Not being governed by an unelected quango in Brussels

Can we then get rid of our civil service too, then?

> Higher wages for British workers

A Tory like you wants higher worker's wages? That would be a first.

> Reduced immigration.

Successive governments failed to control immigration from outside the EU -
totally under their control. EU citizens generally come here to work,
unlike many relatives.

> Lower EU taxes.

Wiped out by the fall in the value of the pound.

> Higher UK production and exports

You think the way to increase exports is by quitting our largest market?

> There's a few to be getting on with!

Nice to see the guessing continues.

--
*Prepositions are not words to end sentences with *

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <ood1pd$1n64$2...@gioia.aioe.org>,

Bill Wright <wrights...@f2s.com> wrote:
> On 02/09/2017 00:26, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> > In article <oobop4$1q3d$1...@gioia.aioe.org>,
> > Bill Wright <wrights...@f2s.com> wrote:
> >> Anyone who doubts that the BBC has an anti-Trump, anti-Brexit agenda
> >> should listen on iPlayer to today's episode of The Cold Swedish
> >> Winter.
> >
> > So by that I take it you are pro Trump? Figures...
> >
> Dave, as usual you miss the point. Pointing out anti-Trump bias does not
> make a person a Trump supporter. For your information, there is as much
> about Trump that I dislike as there is that I like.

Reporting what Trump does and says accurately is going to look to any
Trump supporter as being biased against him.

What you seem to be wanting is for every derogatory comment about him is
balanced with a good one. Which would mean not reporting much of what he
says.

But you said in an earlier post you no longer watch many BBC programmes
because of their PC choice of presenters.

So you were either lying then, or simply choosing the part of the output
you will watch. Which makes claims of bias nonsense.

--
*If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate *

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <ood1lt$1n64$1...@gioia.aioe.org>,

Bill Wright <wrights...@f2s.com> wrote:
> It's a sad thing to have to say, but I think we now need a right of
> centre trustworthy news channel to balance the BBC, which is of course
> left of centre.

Try watching Ch5 news. It's poor - but should suit your views.

--
*Laugh alone and the world thinks you're an idiot.

[T i m]

On Sat, 02 Sep 2017 08:35:54 +0100, Indy Jess John
<jimw...@OMITblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>On 02/09/2017 00:10, Bob Eager wrote:
>
>> Why should they bother? They can do without us, and (according to the
>> Lievers) we can do without them.
>
>The EU needs our money.

And we need to trade connections.

>Britain is one of the nett contributors to the
>EU budget,

It wasn't at the beginning.

> which is why the discussions so far have been all about how
>much we will pay for a divorce settlement.

Understandably. When you leave anywhere permanently, the first thing
you settle is your bill.
>>
<snip>

>>
>I am not convinced that there is a bill to be paid.

Of course there is. Do you think the EU and our commitment to it was
just a day by day thing? Do you not think that there were long term
projects and plans that we have committed to that still require our
commitment? Buy anything on credit, commit to paying towards something
long term (like a mortgage) then stop paying and see what happens.

>The EU's claim
>includes all the EU Membership payments, which we will pay until the day
>we leave,

Check.

> and as Britain part owns all the EU office estate

It does? (genuine question).

> we are due
>back our investment in that, or else an ongoing rental payment for our
>proportion of the buildings.

See above.

>The EU is pretending not to notice
>financial commitments in *both* directions.

Except, as a net contributor for a few years now, the chances are we
are owed (next_to_nothing, if) anything, back.

>
>The Leavers are happy with a hard Brexit, on the whole.

They are? Do you have any stats to back that up? I was told here that
the leave camp was just as diversely ranging and the remain one (no
wonder consider what little few were available then or now) from
people who were unsure but went along with the propaganda to those on
a crusade on one slim topic or another. It's highly likely that far
less than the majority of those who voted leave wanted us to do so
like lemmings leaping off a cliff ... they *assumed* there was a plan.

> What
>complicates matters is that the majority of MPs, regardless of party
>allegiances, are Remainers,

So I wonder why that is, given they probably see / understand more of
the bigger picture than we do?

> and this makes achieving a hard Brexit
>pretty tricky.

And for good reason. Whilst a hard Brexit may be what a minority of
those who voted leave want, it's far from clear just how many want it
at_all_costs, preferring it to be something that is worked out to be
at worst, the best compromise for (all of) us.

>Unfortunately as Cameron was a staunch Remainer and
>didn't imagine that the public could possibly want to change the status
>quo,

And we still don't know that to be the case, just because of the
outcome of a 'poll' at the time (amidst loads of lies, BS and
propaganda).

> he didn't consider it necessary to write into the Referendum
>legislation that the result would be compulsory.

No, because such polls, in the UK generally / legally aren't:

"Although Acts of Parliament may permit referendums to take place, the
doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty means any Act of Parliament
giving effect to a referendum result could be reversed by a subsequent
Act of Parliament. As a result, referendums in the United Kingdom
cannot be constitutionally binding, although they will usually have a
persuasive political effect."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_by_country#United_Kingdom

The law applies no matter what anyone 'promised' at the polling time.

>
>This has given the Remainers hope that they can sabotage any agreement
>to leave.

Which considering the poll was non-binding and in the light of no
clear evidence we won't be going out of the frying pan, into the par,
makes perfect sense (assuming we are still living in a democracy).

>Which is why I believe that there should be no negotiation
>unless it is on a win-win basis.

We have little open to us in the way of true 'negotiation' in any
case, now it's all the remaining members onto us.

>That way the default is that we go
>without an agreement, taking our cheque book with us.

Except I'm not sure we would be allowed to. There could be a
compromise though ...

I worked for a company who leased a building for 20 years. After 15
years they wanted to move but the landlord was unwilling to adjust the
terms or duration of the lease (commercial buildings were laying empty
for some time around then). So, the company left one million pounds on
the landlords doorman and walked off. The sum was calculated to be
less than the remaining leas obligation but enough to cover the lease
of the building until the landlord was likely to be able to re let it.
It also reduced the chances of being chased legally as whist the
company had failed their side of the contract, 'some moneys' had been
put forward to mitigate that.

>
>It is the potential loss of any form of divorce settlement that will
>make the EU crack.

You believe. Until it happens you have no proof it will. It may also
make it more resilient.

>That and the pressure from the EU suppliers who
>export to Britain who don't want future Customs arrangements interfering
>with their free trade prices.

Assuming they don't want to queer the pitch for trading within the EU
themselves.

>Britain doesn't really want that either,
>but as we import far more than we export to the EU, Customs duties will
>be financially beneficial to us as a nation though damaging to the
>exporting companies who will have to have some compensation from the
>financial benefits.

And why I'm trying to do all the buying of equipment that comes from
the EU *now*, before we lose the duty free relationship and the pound
gets any weaker (the last of which came from Bulgaria and I still need
some 3D printer stepper motors that come from (via) Germany).

I guess if you are old and only ever need to buy stuff from the Co-Op
at the top of the road, (that doesn't employ too many 'foreigners')
that wouldn't be so much of an issue.

Cheers, T i m

[pe...@never.here]

On Sat, 2 Sep 2017 08:40:46 +0100, Handsome Jack <Ja...@nowhere.com>
wrote:

Please tell us, tell us all about them.
--
Pete

[T i m]

On Sat, 2 Sep 2017 00:37:55 +0100, "bm" <a...@b.com> wrote:

<snip>

>This is a tad biased but might be worth a read -
>http://brexitcentral.com/today/brexit-news-friday-1-september/

<and will remain unread here for fear of going off in a trance to find
a (European) goat to sacrifice or somesuch>

Bwhahaha .... 'Brexit Central' .... might as well be 'KKK News' or 'NF
Chat zone'.

A 'tad' biased ... bwhahahaha!

No wonder you are so indoctrinated! ;-( [1]

Cheers, T i m

[1] It may not be too late as their are support groups that can take
you away from such cults and give you refuge and rehabilitation etc
(seriously). Just say the word and we will come and get you ...

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 01/09/17 19:10, TimW wrote:
> Brexit is a fuck up before it has begun. that's just a fact.

Brexit was being fucked up by the EU and stooges before it began.

TFYFY.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qU8S_9Lv2Pk

'Brexit Is A Dagger Pointed At The Heart Of The EU'

The EU is a cornered rat fighting for its life and no lie is too great
and no damage is too great for it to contemplate as long as it survives
without becoming a complete laughing stock.



--
Labour - a bunch of rich people convincing poor people to vote for rich
people by telling poor people that "other" rich people are the reason
they are poor.

Peter Thompson

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 01/09/17 19:45, GB wrote:
>> Brexit is a fuck up before it has begun. that's just a fact.
>

> The best analogy I can think of is taking a big bag of sugar and a big
> bag of salt. Then mixing them up together. Then the electorate votes
> that somebody has to pick them apart again.

If that is the best analogy you can come up with you must be
extraordinarily thick.

Id say iots more akin to your highs street bank having been taken over
by the mafia, and you are busy opening a new account and shutting down
all your existing standing orders.

Irritating, but routine.


--
Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.

"Saki"

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 01/09/17 21:37, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Sep 2017 18:22:30 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
>
>

>> If you have any good news about brexit try posting it!
>

> Well, here goes...
> The talks between Britain and the EU broke up today without agreement.
> Let's pray this continues to be the case for the next 18 months (or
> whatever it is) and we revert to WTO rules having handed over precisely
> *zero* pounds to these profligate, blood-sucking parasites.
>
>
>

Hear Hear!

The last theing the Europeans want is no deal, but its what the EU wants.

No deal splits the EU from the Europeans.
And shows how little the EU cares about the welfare of Europeans.


--
The lifetime of any political organisation is about three years before
its been subverted by the people it tried to warn you about.

Anon.

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 01/09/17 21:41, Cursitor Doom wrote:

> On Fri, 01 Sep 2017 21:02:52 +0100, Capitol wrote:
>
>> It's not just the BBC, Sky have removed Fox News from their line
> up for
>> being Trump supporters. I now watch Aljazeera to get better quality news
>> reporting.
>

> RT is a pretty damn good alternative news source, too. Certainly a
> million times better than the fake news outfits, BBC/CNN/NBC etc.
>
RT has massive bias in a way I dont like either.

Frankly I simply read the news as an indication of what the
propagandists are doing, and asking 'why are they doing that?' gleans
some idea of what is going on politically.

I.e. the fact that the media is full of EU unpleasantness against the UK
is basically a softening up process against the british people by a
hostle foreign power - the EU - in order to weaken the resolve of the
government in negotiations.

We are at war with the EU. They know it, we have yet to undertsand that,
and remoaners are the moral and political equivalent of Nazi
sympathizers in WWII.

Aiding the enemy.

Who are not Europe, just the EU.

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 01/09/17 22:19, JoeJoe wrote:
> On 01/09/2017 19:10, TimW wrote:
>> On 01/09/17 17:38, Martin Brown wrote:
>>> On 01/09/2017 15:37, Jethro_uk wrote:

>>>> On Fri, 01 Sep 2017 14:53:43 +0100, Bill Wright wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Anyone who doubts that the BBC has an anti-Trump, anti-Brexit agenda
>>>>> should listen on iPlayer to today's episode of The Cold Swedish
>>>>> Winter.
>>>>>

>>>>> Bill
>>>>
>>>> From what I have seen and heard, the BBC is backing Brexit to the
>>>> hilt by
>>>> uncritically quoting DD, LF and BJ ...
>>>
>>> You have it wrong - they are trying hard to derail Brexit by
>>> uncritically quoting DD, LF and BJ.
>>>
>>> The three stooges don't require the BBC to criticise them to demonstrate
>>> how incoherent they are on the how, what and why of Brexit.
>>>
>>> The only thing the government can agree on is "Brexit means Brexit".
>>> (whatever than means)
>>>
>>
>>
>> It's a leaf from the Donald Trump playbook - anything bad just blame
>> the media for reporting it. Brexit is a fuck up before it has begun.

>> that's just a fact.
>

> With only one exception - the BBC is financed by the general public
> through what is essentially a tax, and is bound, by it's charter, to
> remain unbiased and objective.
>
Of course who decides what bias is, are not themselves objective. The
triumph of Blairs Britain was to replace the heads of each and every
organisation with leftycunts towing the Party line, even though that
line would in the end lead to te desruction of a nation and its culture.


--
Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper
name. They must face the full meaning of that which they are advocating
or condoning; the full, exact, specific meaning of collectivism, of its
logical implications, of the principles upon which it is based, and of
the ultimate consequences to which these principles will lead. They must
face it, then decide whether this is what they want or not.

Ayn Rand.

[alan_m]

On 02/09/2017 09:01, Brian Gaff wrote:

> I mean the Archers gets a huge following for a radio soap, but its about as
> lifelike as a plastic turd.

+1
The BBC sees radio 4 as its flag ship channel for the educated elite but
the way much of the audience seems to adore and defend this 4th rate
soap suggests that the channel is appealing more to the "Sun reading
morons" in our society.

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 01/09/17 22:33, Indy Jess John wrote:

> On 01/09/2017 21:37, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> On Fri, 01 Sep 2017 18:22:30 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
>>
>>
>>> If you have any good news about brexit try posting it!
>>
>> Well, here goes...
>> The talks between Britain and the EU broke up today without agreement.
>> Let's pray this continues to be the case for the next 18 months (or
>> whatever it is) and we revert to WTO rules having handed over precisely
>> *zero* pounds to these profligate, blood-sucking parasites.
>>
>>
>>

> +1
>
> I recommend telling the EU that there will be no further meetings until
> they are prepared to discuss win-win options.
>
> I bet the EU cracks before Britain does.
>
> Jim
>
It usually does. But the EU is faqxiing existential crises. If it gives
way, its finished, because why stay in it if you can get a better deal
ouitside?

If it doesnt give way, it looks stupid and authoritarian. And who wants
to be part of that?

There are powers behind and beyind the EU, and if it fails to serve its
purpose it will vanish faster than you can say 'glasnost'.

If Britain walks away with no deal, and no punishment, the EU is dead.
If Britain walks away with a deal, and light punishment, the EU is dead.

The only outcome that keeps the EU in play, is one where Britain gets so
bad a deal and pays so much that it will be worse off than if it had
stayed in.

Ergo that is the only thing on the table as far as the EU is convcerned.
And that is what every single EU dominated media outlet is saying is
going to happen.

But its is perefectly true that a bad deal is worse than no deal, and
that is Britains ace card.

Britain doesn't need Europe in the way that say Luxembourg does.

Neither does Ireland, Norway, much of scandinavia and a lot of Club Med.

IN fact a lot would be better off out. France Germany, Holland and Italy
are the main beneficiaries of the EU - Germany overwhelmingly so.
Belgium and Luxembourg are too surrounded tro have any indenpendence anyway.

They won't leave. But the rest will.,

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 01/09/17 23:21, brightside S9 wrote:

> On Fri, 01 Sep 2017 22:33:38 +0100, Indy Jess John
> <jimw...@OMITblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 01/09/2017 21:37, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>> On Fri, 01 Sep 2017 18:22:30 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> If you have any good news about brexit try posting it!
>>>
>>> Well, here goes...
>>> The talks between Britain and the EU broke up today without agreement.
>>> Let's pray this continues to be the case for the next 18 months (or
>>> whatever it is) and we revert to WTO rules having handed over precisely
>>> *zero* pounds to these profligate, blood-sucking parasites.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> +1
>>
>> I recommend telling the EU that there will be no further meetings until
>> they are prepared to discuss win-win options.
>>
>> I bet the EU cracks before Britain does.
>>

> I hope you are right but the EU is process driven, thinking out of the
> box is not an option for them.
>
Which is why there will be no deal.

This is their final test of competenmce to be a European superpower, and
one that they will fail.

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 02/09/17 10:23, alan_m wrote:
> On 02/09/2017 09:01, Brian Gaff wrote:
>
>> I mean the Archers gets a huge following for a radio soap, but its
>> about as
>> lifelike as a plastic turd.
>
> +1
> The BBC sees radio 4 as its flag ship channel for the educated elite but
> the way much of the audience seems to adore and defend this 4th rate
> soap suggests that the channel is appealing more to the "Sun reading
> morons" in our society.
>

There was a huge market after the 60s for people who thought they were
intelligent and a cut above...

New Socialism was designed to entrap their limited intlellects into
moral crusades, and the BBC and the Guardian and the New (scientist,
economist etc. etc.) were their trade papers of choice.

It's all philosophically completely unsound, but you have to be a first
rate mind to spot the cracks, and by shouting and using Big Words, the
Left has captured the imagination of all those who imagine themselves to
be better than they are instead of no better than they should be.

And since this is a democracy, that leads directly to rule by leftycunts
like Blair and the EU.


--
The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

[Capitol]

dennis@home wrote:
> On 01/09/2017 21:02, Capitol wrote:

>> Bill Wright wrote:
>>> Anyone who doubts that the BBC has an anti-Trump, anti-Brexit agenda
>>> should listen on iPlayer to today's episode of The Cold Swedish Winter.
>>>
>>> Bill
>>

>> It's not just the BBC, Sky have removed Fox News from their line
>> up for being Trump supporters. I now watch Aljazeera to get better
>> quality news reporting.
>

> They removed Fox because nobody watches it.
>

You will believe any form of propaganda.

[Capitol]

We have a BBC journalist in the family. The BBC is totally biased and
corrupt

[Capitol]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <oobop4$1q3d$1...@gioia.aioe.org>,

> Bill Wright <wrights...@f2s.com> wrote:
>> Anyone who doubts that the BBC has an anti-Trump, anti-Brexit agenda
>> should listen on iPlayer to today's episode of The Cold Swedish Winter.
>

> So by that I take it you are pro Trump? Figures...
>

You are pro Corbyn, so?

[Harry Bloomfield]

alan_m submitted this idea :

> Sugar is soluble in alcohols while salt is not. Simply mix the two in alcohol

> and filter the solution to get the salt. Then evaporate the alcohol sugar
> mixture and you will be left with the sugar.

Would that also work with the EU?

[Bob Eager]

A considered, reasoned response.



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

[Wilf]

On 02/09/2017 10:13 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> Of course who decides what bias is, are not themselves objective. The
> triumph of Blairs Britain was to replace the heads of each and every
> organisation with leftycunts towing the Party line, even though that
> line would in the end lead to te desruction of a nation and its culture.
>
>

If you say so.

Wilf

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 02/09/17 12:24, Bob Eager wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Sep 2017 08:40:46 +0100, Handsome Jack wrote:
>
>> Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> posted
>>> Why are the Lievers bothered? Just go with a hard Brexit. Of course, the
>>> AAA rating will go when the bill isn't paid, but I'm sure they've
>>> thought of that...
>>
>> Balls. You know nothing about credit ratings either.
>
> A considered, reasoned response.
>
>

Yes. I thought so too.

Far more considered and reasoable than yours


>


--
"In our post-modern world, climate science is not powerful because it is
true: it is true because it is powerful."

Lucas Bergkamp

[The Natural Philosopher]

Well just look and see.

You dont need to take my word for it.

> Wilf

[Fredxxx]

On 02/09/2017 08:36, Bob Martin wrote:

> in 1621818 20170901 223938 alan_m <ju...@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 01/09/2017 19:45, GB wrote:

>>>> Brexit is a fuck up before it has begun. that's just a fact.
>>>

>>> The best analogy I can think of is taking a big bag of sugar and a big
>>> bag of salt. Then mixing them up together. Then the electorate votes
>>> that somebody has to pick them apart again.
>>

>> Sugar is soluble in alcohols while salt is not. Simply mix the two in
>> alcohol and filter the solution to get the salt. Then evaporate the
>> alcohol sugar mixture and you will be left with the sugar.
>

> So everyone has to get pissed?

You sound a remoaner than has never heard of a condenser to recover ans
re-use the alcohol?

[Fredxxx]

On 02/09/2017 09:28, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <o8CdndpJ_u_9ITTE...@brightview.co.uk>,
> Capitol <sp...@whereva.uk> wrote:
>> dennis@home wrote:
>>> On 01/09/2017 14:53, Bill Wright wrote:
>>>> Anyone who doubts that the BBC has an anti-Trump, anti-Brexit agenda
>>>> should listen on iPlayer to today's episode of The Cold Swedish Winter.
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>
>>> That's not bias its just what is actually happening.
>>>
>>> If you have any good news about brexit try posting it!
>>>
>
>> Not being governed by an unelected quango in Brussels
>
> Can we then get rid of our civil service too, then?
>
>> Higher wages for British workers
>
> A Tory like you wants higher worker's wages? That would be a first.
>
>> Reduced immigration.
>
> Successive governments failed to control immigration from outside the EU -
> totally under their control. EU citizens generally come here to work,
> unlike many relatives.
>
>> Lower EU taxes.
>
> Wiped out by the fall in the value of the pound.
>
>> Higher UK production and exports
>
> You think the way to increase exports is by quitting our largest market?

That is what happens when the pound falls.

>> There's a few to be getting on with!
>
> Nice to see the guessing continues.

No guesses, just reasons. Can't you tell the difference, is this a
Remoaner thing?

[T i m]

On Sat, 2 Sep 2017 13:12:03 +0100, Fredxxx <fre...@nospam.com> wrote:

>On 02/09/2017 09:28, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

<snip>

>> Nice to see the guessing continues.
>
>No guesses, just reasons.

Yes, they are hopes, dreams or at best 'guesstimations' as because the
Brexiteers have little control in the final outcome, that *is* all it
can (*or ever will, till it all happens and hopefully settles down)
and ever be.

> Can't you tell the difference, is this a
>Remoaner thing?

I'd say it was more a Brexiteer thing as the chances greater that
things will change *more* if we leave than if we stay (that's the
Brexiteer hope after all).

The only thing we don't know (including the Brexiteers) is by how much
and to what end.

Again, the 'hope' is that it will be for the better ... but that's
all it can be.

Anyone arguing it's anything else is either the ultimate optimist or
in denial ... and for me this is *nothing* to do with Brexit and
everything to do with process.

Cheers, T i m

[Nomen Nescio]

Blair is left wing, so was Thatcher then (both sold out the UK to the
5th column "our boys"). You talk bollocks as proven with your posting
history.
Both were under the thumb of the daily mail (and the non British bbc
such as hill. gardner, schafanacker, lucas, silver, moritz, etc), the
primary source of the mainstream media. Full of non Christians (read
EEuians).

[Bill Wright]

On 02/09/2017 09:26, Wilf wrote:

> Whatever its bias, and there is enough complaint from both left and
> right for me to think the BBC is reasonably balanced actually,

That's the fallacy that the BBC pushes at us. "If both sides complain we
must be getting it about right." But the left are far more vocal, and
the right has got so fed up with the BBC they tend not to bother.

I'd far
> prefer to listen to its version of the news than an organisation such as
> Breitbart or RT, etc., which have particular axes to grind and political
> points to make.

But the BBC has an axe to grind. A left-liberal metropolitan axe.

In sum, the BBC is not perfect, for sure, but it's
> pretty darn nearer perfect than anything else we've got or are likely to
> get.  Be careful what you wish for,

You've been sucked in.

Bill

[charles]

In article <ooee24$1o89$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Bill Wright

<wrights...@f2s.com> wrote:
> On 02/09/2017 09:26, Wilf wrote:

> > Whatever its bias, and there is enough complaint from both left and
> > right for me to think the BBC is reasonably balanced actually,

> That's the fallacy that the BBC pushes at us. "If both sides complain we
> must be getting it about right." But the left are far more vocal, and
> the right has got so fed up with the BBC they tend not to bother.

> I'd far
> > prefer to listen to its version of the news than an organisation such
> > as Breitbart or RT, etc., which have particular axes to grind and
> > political points to make.

> But the BBC has an axe to grind. A left-liberal metropolitan axe.

considering that most of the BBC's problems stem from Thatcherism, are you
surprised?

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sat, 02 Sep 2017 10:25:06 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> Which is why there will be no deal.

Well, let's hope so. I believe it would be better to have commenced this
2 year walk-away with the 'cliff-edge' at the outset starting from a
totally clean sheet and negotiate from that neutral position, rather than
suffer the EU to imagine themselves to have the advantage over us. Still,
there's sufficient time yet for DD to declare that further discussions
are futile since we won't negotiate with preconditions in place. The
sooner he walks away from the negotiating table with an air of finality
and dignified indifference, the better.


--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

[The Natural Philosopher]

I am notr surprised that you think so, but in fact it was the
Blair/Campbell witchunt that finally nailed the coffin shut


--
"Corbyn talks about equality, justice, opportunity, health care, peace,
community, compassion, investment, security, housing...."
"What kind of person is not interested in those things?"

"Jeremy Corbyn?"

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 02/09/17 17:22, Huge wrote:

> On 2017-09-02, alan_m <ju...@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 02/09/2017 09:01, Brian Gaff wrote:
>>
>>> I mean the Archers gets a huge following for a radio soap, but its about as
>>> lifelike as a plastic turd.
>>
>> +1
>

> +2
>
And everyday story of guardian reading fantasists.




--
No Apple devices were knowingly used in the preparation of this post.

[Wilf]

I think not. Maybe you have been sucked into something different, though.

Wilf

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <oodoge$hid$1...@news.albasani.net>,

Brian Gaff <bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> I mean the Archers gets a huge following for a radio soap, but its about
> as lifelike as a plastic turd.

And which soap reflects true life? Coronation Street? Eastenders?

I'm not qualified to judge as I live in neither of those areas. Or
Ambridge, come to that.

--
*A bartender is just a pharmacist with a limited inventory *

Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <oodu38$jbu$1...@dont-email.me>,

The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> There was a huge market after the 60s for people who thought they were
> intelligent and a cut above...

> New Socialism was designed to entrap their limited intlellects into
> moral crusades, and the BBC and the Guardian and the New (scientist,
> economist etc. etc.) were their trade papers of choice.

> It's all philosophically completely unsound, but you have to be a first
> rate mind to spot the cracks, and by shouting and using Big Words, the
> Left has captured the imagination of all those who imagine themselves to
> be better than they are instead of no better than they should be.

> And since this is a democracy, that leads directly to rule by leftycunts
> like Blair and the EU.

My kill file has expired, so I'm seeing your posts direct for the first
time in a year.

And realise once more why I killfiled all pretentious prats.

--
*I speak fluent patriarchy but it's not my mother tongue

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sat, 02 Sep 2017 08:35:54 +0100, Indy Jess John wrote:

> The EU needs our money. Britain is one of the nett contributors to the
> EU budget, which is why the discussions so far have been all about how
> much we will pay for a divorce settlement.

But money was their sole interest in us *before* we decided to leave.
Remember all those meetings we had with them over all those years all
revolved around how much they could screw us for or how much of a rebate
we could get from the gross sum they'd screwed us for etc, etc..
We should never have joined that ruinously expensive club in the first
place.

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sat, 02 Sep 2017 09:45:07 +0100, T i m wrote:

> ... they *assumed* there was a plan.

You know absolutely *nothing* about any assumptions that may or may not
have been made by the people who voted Leave. You are not gifted with the
power to read other people's minds!

[Indy Jess John]

On 02/09/2017 18:49, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Sep 2017 08:35:54 +0100, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
>> The EU needs our money. Britain is one of the nett contributors to the
>> EU budget, which is why the discussions so far have been all about how
>> much we will pay for a divorce settlement.
>
> But money was their sole interest in us *before* we decided to leave.
> Remember all those meetings we had with them over all those years all
> revolved around how much they could screw us for or how much of a rebate
> we could get from the gross sum they'd screwed us for etc, etc..
> We should never have joined that ruinously expensive club in the first
> place.
>

I can't argue with that accurate summary of what we ended up with , but
we were (falsely) told it was a Common Market, a duty free trading
arrangement. And for a few months that is all we got, to lull us into a
false sense of security. Then the extras crept in: tendering had to be
Europe wide; regulations had to be standardised to make a level playing
field; and so on.

Of course, once we had opted to join, no Prime Minister afterwards ever
let the public have a say in how it developed, until Cameron and he only
allowed a referendum on the assumption it would stop UKIP stealing
seats, and he did so having convinced himself that the public would want
to remain in.

In the interval, there were various treaties each further tightening the
control Brussels had over the members, and for most of them the Prime
Minister of the day wouldn't even allow a vote in the Commons. Vested
interests were involved. Blair wantrd to be EU president (he always
does) which is why he is being a traitor to Britain and tries to
sabotage any Brexit agreement.

That is why, having got a referendum, and having voted to leave, and
having got a Prime Minister who wants to give the majority what they
asked for, we really do have to make sure that we leave as soon as
possible. If we don't, we will never have another chance: most MPs want
to remain in.

Jim

[T i m]

On Sat, 2 Sep 2017 17:53:04 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
<cu...@notformail.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 02 Sep 2017 09:45:07 +0100, T i m wrote:
>
>> ... they *assumed* there was a plan.
>
>You know absolutely *nothing* about any assumptions that may or may not
>have been made by the people who voted Leave.

Oh yes I do.

1) I've listened to a load of them here.
2) I've spoken to a load of them IRTW.
3) I've seen a load of them on TV.
4) I've read loads about their views on the Interwebs.

I know more than you than you'd ever understand because of your Brexit
Blinkers.

> You are not gifted with the
>power to read other people's minds!

I don't need to read their minds, I just need to read their words and
hear their voices?

It's only Brexiteers who are making all the assumptions ... 'Things
*will* be better when we leave the EU ...'. Proof?

They voted leave without (in *all cases*) fully understanding the full
implications, because *no one* yet knows them (even you, and that's
another fact, not an assumption). Yes, you can *assume* stuff will
happen one way or another ... but all of it is mere speculation.

QED.

But then we know the real reasons ... racism, greed, Little
Englanders, 'Grass is greener' and gambling.

Except, they were gambling with other peoples money (not uncommon for
those addicted to it of course). ;-(

That would make for an interesting survey ...

'What percentage of those who voted Leave are gamblers?

I am not a gambler (never have, in any form) so it's not surprising I
didn't vote either way. I would have answered the referendum poll
'NOTA' but that wasn't a formal option so I had to just spoil my
paper.

Cheers, T i m

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sat, 02 Sep 2017 10:05:15 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> No deal splits the EU from the Europeans.
> And shows how little the EU cares about the welfare of Europeans.

...or unemployment rates in Germany for that matter! :->

[Capitol]

Still Remoaning I read and boasting about your ability to be indecisive.

[Capitol]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <oodu38$jbu$1...@dont-email.me>,
> The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> There was a huge market after the 60s for people who thought they were
>> intelligent and a cut above...
>
>> New Socialism was designed to entrap their limited intlellects into
>> moral crusades, and the BBC and the Guardian and the New (scientist,
>> economist etc. etc.) were their trade papers of choice.
>
>> It's all philosophically completely unsound, but you have to be a first
>> rate mind to spot the cracks, and by shouting and using Big Words, the
>> Left has captured the imagination of all those who imagine themselves to
>> be better than they are instead of no better than they should be.
>
>> And since this is a democracy, that leads directly to rule by leftycunts
>> like Blair and the EU.
>
>
> My kill file has expired, so I'm seeing your posts direct for the first
> time in a year.
>
> And realise once more why I killfiled all pretentious prats.
>

Ihadn't realised you kill filed yourself!

[bm]

"Capitol" <sp...@whereva.uk> wrote in message
news:eNidnZrFsLWygTbE...@brightview.co.uk...

Yes, he appears quite proud of his indecision and looking like a dick.
He's obviously a remoaner and scared shitless about leaving, why didn't he
just tick the frigging box?
He needs guidance so should have asked the voter in front of him.

[bm]

"Capitol" <sp...@whereva.uk> wrote in message

news:eNidnZXFsLV-gTbE...@brightview.co.uk...

You're a very naughty boy.

[Bob Eager]

Glad to see you're decisively wrong.

[bm]

"Bob Eager" <news...@eager.cx> wrote in message
news:f10m3nF...@mid.individual.net...

C'mon Bob, D i m went to vote and purposely spoilt his paper.
Did you do that?
He's obviously a remoaner, like yourself.
He just couldn't be arsed to tick the box.
No matter, it'll never happen.
Some half-arsed middle ground will be found where no-one is happy with the
outcome.

[Rod Speed]

"alan_m" <ju...@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:f0v5hr...@mid.individual.net...
> On 02/09/2017 01:30, Bob Eager wrote:
>> On Sat, 02 Sep 2017 01:17:14 +0100, alan_m wrote:

>>
>>> On 02/09/2017 00:10, Bob Eager wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why are the Lievers bothered? Just go with a hard Brexit. Of course,
>>>> the AAA rating will go when the bill isn't paid, but I'm sure they've
>>>> thought of that...
>>>>
>>>>

>>> Has the UK still got a AAA rating? We lost the AAA rating with one of
>>> the agencies long before the referendum.
>>
>> We lost the Moody one, I think. That will go down even further, but that
>> won't matter according to Lievers.
>>
>
> Wasn't the reduction in our rating more to do with the Bank of England
> announcing yet more quantitative easing (currency devaluation) to bail out
> the banks who seem to reveal on a six monthly basis yet another dodgy
> practice for which they are about to be fined billions of
> dollars/pounds/euros?
>
> Were the millions paid in bankers bonuses the proceeds of crime?

Nope, what they did was stupid, but not illegal so not crime.

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 03/09/17 07:13, Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
> GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com> wrote in news:ooc9jg$cgk$1...@dont-email.me:

>
>>> Brexit is a fuck up before it has begun. that's
>>> just a fact.
>>
>> The best analogy I can think of is taking a big bag of sugar and a big
>> bag of salt. Then mixing them up together. Then the electorate votes
>> that somebody has to pick them apart again.
>

> Which part is which? :D
>
Who knows?

Remoaoaner stupidify is exceeded by their inanity and topped by their
obscurity.

The seem to live in a delusional telly-tubby like world where a mother
figure watches over them and all is warm and cuddly in Mutti Merkels
kindergarten.


--
"It is an established fact to 97% confidence limits that left wing
conspirators see right wing conspiracies everywhere"

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 03/09/17 07:23, Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
> Fredxxx <fre...@nospam.com> wrote in news:oocgh0$3lg$1...@dont-email.me:

>
>>>> Higher wages for British workers
>>>

>>> Not true!
>>
>> Its already happening. Immigration has single handedly made uk wages
>> stagnate over the past 10 years. That is now changing.
>
> The UK is still in the EU, so no effect can yet have materialised.

Ah. So the decsision to leave hasnt altered anything.

One begis to appercieate the remoaner delusional state.


If
> immigration will actually dwindle after it leaves (which is not a
> given), that doesn't necessarily mean wages will rise. Because
> immigrants are also customers, so turnover of all sorts of businesses
> will suffer as well when they stay away.
>

Good grief.

And where do tehse immigrants get theor money from pray?


>>>> Lower EU taxes.
>>>
>>> Not rue!
>>
>> I assume you meant 'true'. Are you suggesting we will still be
>> shovelling £billions to Brussels?
>
> It's a zero sum game. The EU has also shovelled billions into the UK by
> subsidising all sorts of projects and businesses, which the UK will
> then have to finance on its own. So no net gain. The only thing you
> could argue is it's been a detour.

Its not a zero sum game and you know it.

The losers are the brussels plutocrats and Eu centred businesses.

>
>>>> Higher UK production and exports
>

> That makes no sense at all. If anything, the reverse.
>
More delusions


--
Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead
to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 03/09/17 07:32, Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
> Indy Jess John <jimw...@OMITblueyonder.co.uk>
> wrote in news:xbtqB.1078472$WI6.1...@fx30.am4:
>
>> I am not convinced that there is a bill to be paid.
>
> Regardless, the major cost will be in business. There are thousands of
> companies on both sides of the Channel as well as international
> projects whose business models rely of a common market being in place,
> and they're all going to suffer. Just think Airbus for example.
>
Absolutely no reaosn why they should suffer at all.

You don't have much grasp of globalised business do you?


--
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign,
that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."

Jonathan Swift.

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 03/09/17 07:37, Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
> Fredxxx <fre...@nospam.com> wrote in news:oocg6c$2jq$1...@dont-email.me:

>
>> On 01/09/2017 19:45, GB wrote:
>>>> Brexit is a fuck up before it has begun. that's just a fact.
>>>
>>> The best analogy I can think of is taking a big bag of sugar and a big
>>> bag of salt. Then mixing them up together. Then the electorate votes
>>> that somebody has to pick them apart again.
>>

>> That doesn't sound a very good analogy.
>
> I think he means all the EU regulations the UK has adopted, and all
> sorts of mutual business relations that now have to be undone.
>
>> Perhaps it is, where it suggests that we should never have allowed the
>> salt (developing countries) to join the EU
>
> There are no Third World countries in the EU.

ROFLMAO!


> Besides don't you think
> it's a good thing that the Cold War has ended, and that the west is not
> just morally obliged to help its eastern neighbours get along, but that
> it's also in the west's (including the UK's) best interest?
>
OhMiGawd. A German is now talking 'moral high ground'

Whatever next...

[Norman Wells]

On 03/09/2017 07:23, Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
> Fredxxx <fre...@nospam.com> wrote in news:oocgh0$3lg$1...@dont-email.me:

>> I assume you meant 'true'. Are you suggesting we will still be
>> shovelling £billions to Brussels?
>
> It's a zero sum game. The EU has also shovelled billions into the UK by
> subsidising all sorts of projects and businesses, which the UK will
> then have to finance on its own. So no net gain.

I see you have no understanding of the meaning of 'net contributor'.

The UK has poured far more into coffers of the EU than it has ever
received back from them.

Once we stop doing it, we will be able to fund all the things the EU
currently does out of our gross contribution and *in addition* have our
'net contribution' in our own pockets to spend on what we choose.

[T i m]

+1

It's the *fact* that they (Cult Brexiteers) can't differentiate
between someone pro Remain (not me), someone pro Leave (not me) and
someone needing sufficient information before they were able to make a
decision either way (me and potentially many of the 13 Million people
who didn't actually turn up at the polling station), says more about
them (Cult Brexiteers) than they could ever realise / understand.

Being they (the Cult Brexiteers) are deluded fantasists, many are self
declared racists / complete nutjobs (they know who they are) and most
importantly / worryingly, addicted gamblers ... willing to vote away
other peoples lives without having any idea of anything at all, that
then opens up the massive question of should they be even allowed to
vote?

Along those lines, I think, along with a 10 question multiple choice
'political / social awareness' questionnaire you have to get right at
the polling station before you can vote, you should also need to take
an EQ test to determine if you are likely to be a genuinely good
citizen, willing to put the good of 'most people' before themselves,
rather than a psychopath. ;-(

That should at least stop all the 'coin tossers', voting without any
understanding of the bigger picture whatsoever and especially where
the outcome is near a 50:50 split, as with the EU binary poll,
actually make a big difference by just using 'chance'? ;-(

Chris Patten said on the use of a referendum to decide such things:

"I think referendums are fundamentally anti-democratic in our system,
and I wouldn't have anything to do with them. On the whole,
governments only concede them when governments are weak."

Given that the government, after holding a flash election to
demonstrate how much support it had, then had to gain a coalition just
to stay in power, seems to support all that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum#Patten.27s_criticism

Cheers, T i m

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 03/09/17 09:14, Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote in
> news:oogbr3$gi2$4...@dont-email.me:

>
>>>> Perhaps it is, where it suggests that we should never have allowed the
>>>> salt (developing countries) to join the EU
>>>
>>> There are no Third World countries in the EU.
>>
>> ROFLMAO!
>

> There are former eastern block countries in there, but they are not
> third world in any meaningful way, and they are developing fast.

>
>>> Besides don't you think
>>> it's a good thing that the Cold War has ended, and that the west is not
>>> just morally obliged to help its eastern neighbours get along, but that
>>> it's also in the west's (including the UK's) best interest?
>>>
>> OhMiGawd. A German is now talking 'moral high ground'
>>
>> Whatever next...
>

> You just confirmed my initial impression, that Brexit is a lot about
> nationalism. I'm a mild euroskeptic myself, but more from a left wing
> angle. My main criticism is that the EU isn't democratic and some of
> its economic policies are disastrous. But we should fix that from
> within,

Ah, the inevitable Left Wing/Teutonic 'should' that takes precedence
over any practical detauls like 'how'.

Ther UK spent the last 40 years trying to fix the EU from within.

Finally we decided it was easier to fix it from outside.


and with the UK inside that would have been easier.

It wasn't.

Regardless,
> a vote can't change geography. We still need some form of European
> co-operation and friendly neighbourhood, which is now becoming more
> difficult.

What we dont need is a 21st century attem,pt at a 19th century German
Empire complete with European colonies.

> But it seems folks like you disagree with the latter too?
>
Not at all. Nothing wrong with Europe and Europeans, apart from them
being politically naive. Not even anytthing wrong with a European Union.

Just not the corrupt behemoth we now have.

Still, its won't last.

And we can go back to co-operating where and because its in everyones
interests, and not because the EU dictates it.

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 03/09/17 09:25, Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote in

> news:oogbmb$gi2$2...@dont-email.me:

>
>>>> Its already happening. Immigration has single handedly made uk wages
>>>> stagnate over the past 10 years. That is now changing.
>>>
>>> The UK is still in the EU, so no effect can yet have materialised.
>>
>> Ah. So the decsision to leave hasnt altered anything.
>

> No. It will in 2 years, but so far nothing has changed.

And that of course is a complete example if one were needed of the
delusion and doublethink exhibited by remoaners.

Things are already changing. Eureopean immigration is down,. the pound
has been artificallu lowered, bueisness -esepceially export business is
booming with Massive inward investment from non-eu fund sources,
unemployment is down.

They are bvuilding the offices and factories for a low wage
geographically close manufacturing and servcice industry that doesnt
have to kowtow to everyt employment and enviroinmental regulation that
brussells shits out of its arse.


>
> In the bigger picture it's a loss. First of all it's a fact that the UK
> is paying to the EU, but it's also getting something back in the form
> of all sorts of subsidies. The difference is still negative, that is
> true as such. Google tells me it's about 11 billion pounds per year.
> But you have to weigh in the larger economic effect of Brexit. If it
> only costs 1 percent of UK GDP, which is around 3,000 billion pounds,
> you're looking at a net loss of 20 billion per year. And 1 percent cost
> of Brexit might even be a too optimistic assumption.
>
Or it might be a wholly pessimistic assumption.

There are far bigger markets than the EU.

Yiou are still stuck in yourt 'little European' mindset full of closed
mind thinking about siocials justice and tolerance and all te bullshit
you have been brought up on.

It's a bigger world than you can possibly imagine.

Time to grow up.


--
"What do you think about Gay Marriage?"
"I don't."
"Don't what?"
"Think about Gay Marriage."

[Tim Watts]

On 03/09/17 07:32, Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
> Indy Jess John <jimw...@OMITblueyonder.co.uk>
> wrote in news:xbtqB.1078472$WI6.1...@fx30.am4:
>
>> I am not convinced that there is a bill to be paid.
>
> Regardless, the major cost will be in business. There are thousands of
> companies on both sides of the Channel as well as international
> projects whose business models rely of a common market being in place,
> and they're all going to suffer. Just think Airbus for example.
>

Boeing seems to manage OK with it's Dreamliner being manufactured all
over the world and the pieces brought together for final assembly.

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 03/09/17 09:36, Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
> Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote
> in news:f11sts...@mid.individual.net:

>
>> I see you have no understanding of the meaning of 'net contributor'.
>>
>> The UK has poured far more into coffers of the EU than it has ever
>> received back from them.
>

> The UK is not the only country doing so. I guess the others are idiots
> in your view? :)

>
>> Once we stop doing it, we will be able to fund all the things the EU
>> currently does out of our gross contribution and *in addition* have our
>> 'net contribution' in our own pockets to spend on what we choose.
>

> Except your own pockets might shrink as a result, see my conclusion
> here:
>
> <e9egoo...@wschwanke.de>
>
My conclusions is that not having to comply with ridiculous and
illogical green EU initiatives that are only in place to placate the neo
nazis of the german Green movement would save the UK around £10-£20bn a
year.


--
"Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social
conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the
windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) "

Alan Sokal

[Norman Wells]

On 03/09/2017 09:36, Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
> Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote
> in news:f11sts...@mid.individual.net:
>

>> I see you have no understanding of the meaning of 'net contributor'.
>>
>> The UK has poured far more into coffers of the EU than it has ever
>> received back from them.
>

> The UK is not the only country doing so. I guess the others are idiots
> in your view? :)
>

>> Once we stop doing it, we will be able to fund all the things the EU
>> currently does out of our gross contribution and *in addition* have our
>> 'net contribution' in our own pockets to spend on what we choose.
>

> Except your own pockets might shrink as a result, see my conclusion
> here:

That's not what you were arguing though.

[Fredxxx]

On 03/09/2017 07:37, Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
> Fredxxx <fre...@nospam.com> wrote in news:oocg6c$2jq$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 01/09/2017 19:45, GB wrote:
>>>> Brexit is a fuck up before it has begun. that's just a fact.
>>>
>>> The best analogy I can think of is taking a big bag of sugar and a big
>>> bag of salt. Then mixing them up together. Then the electorate votes
>>> that somebody has to pick them apart again.
>>
>> That doesn't sound a very good analogy.
>
> I think he means all the EU regulations the UK has adopted, and all
> sorts of mutual business relations that now have to be undone.
>

>> Perhaps it is, where it suggests that we should never have allowed the
>> salt (developing countries) to join the EU
>
> There are no Third World countries in the EU.

If you say there are no Third World countries in Africa I would agree
with you.

However, I define a developing country as one where horse and cart trump
tractors. Have you ever visit rural parts of Romania?

> Besides don't you think
> it's a good thing that the Cold War has ended, and that the west is not
> just morally obliged to help its eastern neighbours get along, but that
> it's also in the west's (including the UK's) best interest?

Agreed, except free movement of workers should only have been allowed
when there was closer pay parity.

[Fredxxx]

On 03/09/2017 09:14, Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote in

> news:oogbr3$gi2$4...@dont-email.me:

>
>>>> Perhaps it is, where it suggests that we should never have allowed the
>>>> salt (developing countries) to join the EU
>>>
>>> There are no Third World countries in the EU.
>>
>> ROFLMAO!
>

> There are former eastern block countries in there, but they are not
> third world in any meaningful way, and they are developing fast.

At great expense and the very cause of the current EU instability.

Brexit is first, who is next?

[Indy Jess John]

On 03/09/2017 09:36, Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
> Norman Wells<h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote
> in news:f11sts...@mid.individual.net:
>

>> I see you have no understanding of the meaning of 'net contributor'.
>>
>> The UK has poured far more into coffers of the EU than it has ever
>> received back from them.
>

> The UK is not the only country doing so. I guess the others are idiots
> in your view? :)
>

The others are free to fund the EU if they see fit. Britain isn't
dictatorial in that respect, only looking after the preference of its
population.

>> Once we stop doing it, we will be able to fund all the things the EU
>> currently does out of our gross contribution and *in addition* have our
>> 'net contribution' in our own pockets to spend on what we choose.
>

> Except your own pockets might shrink as a result, see my conclusion
> here:
>

> <e9egoo...@wschwanke.de>
>
That is a e-mail address and clicking on it gives me a blank screen for
me to write to you. Should I conclude that you have no opinion of your own?

I remind you that a lot of countries outside the EU are ready to do
trade deals with Britain provided we leave the EU. I am looking forward
to the prosperity that will bring.

Jim