Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
New BBC soap
46 views
Skip to first unread message
Bill Wright
Jul 19, 2019, 8:24:01 PM7/19/19
to
THE RIGGERS
An exciting new BBC drama for daytime TV!
Starting soon on BBC1!
Following on in the footsteps of ‘Doctors’, the new series will have
social justice and gritty story lines at its heart. The cast members
were of course all chosen on talent grounds alone, but by lucky chance
the result is a marvellously diverse ensemble, truly representative of
our wonderfully diverse modern Britain.
The show centres on the lives and loves of a team of South Yorkshire
aerial riggers. The team leader and business owner is ‘Muff’ Muncha, a
formidable lady of Polish origin. Muff has a screen-filling presence
that no-one can ignore. She can beat any of the men she employs at
ladder climbing, aerial rigging, and customer dissing. Muff is married
to Gloria Armstrong, who owns Macho, the female-only gym next door.
Chief rigger is Bonko Aldayo, played by newcomer Abinbolobobo
Bobhinmaaa. Abinbolobobo graduated with honours only last year from the
Nigeria Academy of Dramatic Arts, and now seems set for a glittering
career in UK film, theatre, and television. We’re sure he’ll always be
in work, despite having very little English and being quite ugly.
Bonko’s rival is Alisdair Balfour. Alisdair’s personal quest is to
install more rigs per day than any of the other workers. His attempts to
top the league table provide much of the drama in the series. Because he
is differently abled he has major challenges which he overcomes
heroically. Alisdair’s back story is told in the first episode. Alisdair
is an ardent environmentalist — a wonderful guy — and has real concerns
about saving the planet. In an heroic attempt to prevent a train loaded
with fossil fuel from reaching a power station he had laid on the
railway with his arms and legs across the rails. This didn’t go quite
according to plan. In the first episode of ‘The Riggers’ he is
interviewed for the job of aerial rigger, and in a powerfully dramatic
scene he proves beyond doubt that he can climb ladders despite being
limbless, by screaming repeatedly at Muff, “I can do the job, and if you
don’t give it to me I’ll report you for disability discrimination!” Muff
hugs him and they both cry.
Alisdair has yet to find love, and as the series progresses we see him
attempt to find a partner, “a big strong guy who can haul me onto the
roof!” he jokes. Alisdair is gay, but he doesn’t shout it from the
rooftops.
The customers provide much of the humour and drama in this bitter-sweet
series. Some of them are hard working and well-off, and thus obviously
rather obnoxious. There are also drug addicts and petty criminals, all
of whom the team obviously treat with the greatest respect and help out
in every possible way. In one very touching episode Alisdair allows a
young man who has been thrown out of art school following a
misunderstanding in the toilets to share his tiny one-bedroom flat until
he can get on his feet.
Many of the customers are old and therefore ignorant of the true
realities of life; in fact one elderly man proudly declares that he is
in favour of Brexit. In a series of hard-hitting but at the same time
heart-warming scenes spread over several episodes the riggers come
together as a team and take turns visiting this man until he finally he
sees the truth and shouts “Brexiteers are all stupid!”
THE RIGGERS starts on BBC1 next Wednesday at 1.45pm. Another hit, just
like ‘Doctors’! Don’t miss it!
An exciting new BBC drama for daytime TV!
Starting soon on BBC1!
Following on in the footsteps of ‘Doctors’, the new series will have
social justice and gritty story lines at its heart. The cast members
were of course all chosen on talent grounds alone, but by lucky chance
the result is a marvellously diverse ensemble, truly representative of
our wonderfully diverse modern Britain.
The show centres on the lives and loves of a team of South Yorkshire
aerial riggers. The team leader and business owner is ‘Muff’ Muncha, a
formidable lady of Polish origin. Muff has a screen-filling presence
that no-one can ignore. She can beat any of the men she employs at
ladder climbing, aerial rigging, and customer dissing. Muff is married
to Gloria Armstrong, who owns Macho, the female-only gym next door.
Chief rigger is Bonko Aldayo, played by newcomer Abinbolobobo
Bobhinmaaa. Abinbolobobo graduated with honours only last year from the
Nigeria Academy of Dramatic Arts, and now seems set for a glittering
career in UK film, theatre, and television. We’re sure he’ll always be
in work, despite having very little English and being quite ugly.
Bonko’s rival is Alisdair Balfour. Alisdair’s personal quest is to
install more rigs per day than any of the other workers. His attempts to
top the league table provide much of the drama in the series. Because he
is differently abled he has major challenges which he overcomes
heroically. Alisdair’s back story is told in the first episode. Alisdair
is an ardent environmentalist — a wonderful guy — and has real concerns
about saving the planet. In an heroic attempt to prevent a train loaded
with fossil fuel from reaching a power station he had laid on the
railway with his arms and legs across the rails. This didn’t go quite
according to plan. In the first episode of ‘The Riggers’ he is
interviewed for the job of aerial rigger, and in a powerfully dramatic
scene he proves beyond doubt that he can climb ladders despite being
limbless, by screaming repeatedly at Muff, “I can do the job, and if you
don’t give it to me I’ll report you for disability discrimination!” Muff
hugs him and they both cry.
Alisdair has yet to find love, and as the series progresses we see him
attempt to find a partner, “a big strong guy who can haul me onto the
roof!” he jokes. Alisdair is gay, but he doesn’t shout it from the
rooftops.
The customers provide much of the humour and drama in this bitter-sweet
series. Some of them are hard working and well-off, and thus obviously
rather obnoxious. There are also drug addicts and petty criminals, all
of whom the team obviously treat with the greatest respect and help out
in every possible way. In one very touching episode Alisdair allows a
young man who has been thrown out of art school following a
misunderstanding in the toilets to share his tiny one-bedroom flat until
he can get on his feet.
Many of the customers are old and therefore ignorant of the true
realities of life; in fact one elderly man proudly declares that he is
in favour of Brexit. In a series of hard-hitting but at the same time
heart-warming scenes spread over several episodes the riggers come
together as a team and take turns visiting this man until he finally he
sees the truth and shouts “Brexiteers are all stupid!”
THE RIGGERS starts on BBC1 next Wednesday at 1.45pm. Another hit, just
like ‘Doctors’! Don’t miss it!
The Natural Philosopher
Jul 20, 2019, 12:06:07 AM7/20/19
to
On 20/07/2019 01:24, Bill Wright wrote:
> exciting new BBC drama
I reckong you blew it there Bill.
Nothing about the BBC is exciting, new, or dramatic.
It's the same old political correctness served as cold as yesterday's
dog sick.
--
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's
too dark to read.
Groucho Marx
> exciting new BBC drama
I reckong you blew it there Bill.
Nothing about the BBC is exciting, new, or dramatic.
It's the same old political correctness served as cold as yesterday's
dog sick.
--
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's
too dark to read.
Groucho Marx
alan_m
Jul 20, 2019, 2:42:08 AM7/20/19
to
On 20/07/2019 01:24, Bill Wright wrote:
> THE RIGGERS starts on BBC1 next Wednesday at 1.45pm. Another hit, just
> like ‘Doctors’! Don’t miss it!
And like all the other daytime dross the BBC transmit it will be prime
> like ‘Doctors’! Don’t miss it!
time evening viewing the week after.
There will be an omnibus version broadcast on Saturday, and repeated on
Sunday.
Give it a few months and there will be " classic" Riggers episodes
broadcast on BBC4, starting with episode one.
--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk
alan_m
Jul 20, 2019, 2:52:36 AM7/20/19
to
On 20/07/2019 07:42, alan_m wrote:
> On 20/07/2019 01:24, Bill Wright wrote:
>
>> THE RIGGERS starts on BBC1 next Wednesday at 1.45pm. Another hit, just
>> like ‘Doctors’! Don’t miss it!
>
> And like all the other daytime dross the BBC transmit it will be prime
> time evening viewing the week after.
>
> There will be an omnibus version broadcast on Saturday, and repeated on
> Sunday.
>
> Give it a few months and there will be " classic" Riggers episodes
> broadcast on BBC4, starting with episode one.
>
>
Alternatively the BBC could use the licence payers money to commission
> On 20/07/2019 01:24, Bill Wright wrote:
>
>> THE RIGGERS starts on BBC1 next Wednesday at 1.45pm. Another hit, just
>> like ‘Doctors’! Don’t miss it!
>
> And like all the other daytime dross the BBC transmit it will be prime
> time evening viewing the week after.
>
> There will be an omnibus version broadcast on Saturday, and repeated on
> Sunday.
>
> Give it a few months and there will be " classic" Riggers episodes
> broadcast on BBC4, starting with episode one.
>
>
this new quality soap and then charge £5.99 a month for viewers to watch
it on their new Britbox subscription service.
Brian Gaff
Jul 20, 2019, 3:39:17 AM7/20/19
to
I thought the pitch sounded more like a Channel four show myself.
It would be more likely that the Beeb would go for a new children's show
presented by a huge variety of ethnic misfits, and disabled people who all
use alternative swear words to the ones the rest of us do. A bit like Grange
hill meets the Wombles.
Brian
--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"alan_m" <ju...@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:gpfrdt...@mid.individual.net...
It would be more likely that the Beeb would go for a new children's show
presented by a huge variety of ethnic misfits, and disabled people who all
use alternative swear words to the ones the rest of us do. A bit like Grange
hill meets the Wombles.
Brian
--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"alan_m" <ju...@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:gpfrdt...@mid.individual.net...
Brian Gaff
Jul 20, 2019, 3:41:09 AM7/20/19
to
Don't you think the name Britbox is naff in the extreme, how many management
meetings and focus groups did it take to come up with that little gem?
Brian
--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"alan_m" <ju...@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:gpfs1i...@mid.individual.net...
meetings and focus groups did it take to come up with that little gem?
Brian
--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"alan_m" <ju...@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
> On 20/07/2019 07:42, alan_m wrote:
>> On 20/07/2019 01:24, Bill Wright wrote:
>>
>>> THE RIGGERS starts on BBC1 next Wednesday at 1.45pm. Another hit, just
>>> like 'Doctors'! Don't miss it!
>>
>> And like all the other daytime dross the BBC transmit it will be prime
>> time evening viewing the week after.
>>
>> There will be an omnibus version broadcast on Saturday, and repeated on
>> Sunday.
>>
>> Give it a few months and there will be " classic" Riggers episodes
>> broadcast on BBC4, starting with episode one.
>>
>>
>
> Alternatively the BBC could use the licence payers money to commission
> this new quality soap and then charge Ł5.99 a month for viewers to watch
>> On 20/07/2019 01:24, Bill Wright wrote:
>>
>>> THE RIGGERS starts on BBC1 next Wednesday at 1.45pm. Another hit, just
>>> like 'Doctors'! Don't miss it!
>>
>> And like all the other daytime dross the BBC transmit it will be prime
>> time evening viewing the week after.
>>
>> There will be an omnibus version broadcast on Saturday, and repeated on
>> Sunday.
>>
>> Give it a few months and there will be " classic" Riggers episodes
>> broadcast on BBC4, starting with episode one.
>>
>>
>
> Alternatively the BBC could use the licence payers money to commission
Brian Gaff
Jul 20, 2019, 3:43:39 AM7/20/19
to
BBC Futures might be a nice name for the system.
news:qgugil$tu2$1...@dont-email.me...
Brian
--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Brian Gaff" <bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
news:qgugil$tu2$1...@dont-email.me...
> Don't you think the name Britbox is naff in the extreme, how many
> management meetings and focus groups did it take to come up with that
> little gem?
>
>
> Brian
>
> --
> ----- --
> This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
> The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
> bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
> Blind user, so no pictures please
> Note this Signature is meaningless.!
> "alan_m" <ju...@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:gpfs1i...@mid.individual.net...
>> On 20/07/2019 07:42, alan_m wrote:
>>> On 20/07/2019 01:24, Bill Wright wrote:
>>>
>>>> THE RIGGERS starts on BBC1 next Wednesday at 1.45pm. Another hit, just
>>>> like 'Doctors'! Don't miss it!
>>>
>>> And like all the other daytime dross the BBC transmit it will be prime
>>> time evening viewing the week after.
>>>
>>> There will be an omnibus version broadcast on Saturday, and repeated on
>>> Sunday.
>>>
>>> Give it a few months and there will be " classic" Riggers episodes
>>> broadcast on BBC4, starting with episode one.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Alternatively the BBC could use the licence payers money to commission
>> this new quality soap and then charge £5.99 a month for viewers to watch
> management meetings and focus groups did it take to come up with that
> little gem?
>
>
> Brian
>
> --
> ----- --
> This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
> The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
> bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
> Blind user, so no pictures please
> Note this Signature is meaningless.!
> "alan_m" <ju...@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:gpfs1i...@mid.individual.net...
>> On 20/07/2019 07:42, alan_m wrote:
>>> On 20/07/2019 01:24, Bill Wright wrote:
>>>
>>>> THE RIGGERS starts on BBC1 next Wednesday at 1.45pm. Another hit, just
>>>> like 'Doctors'! Don't miss it!
>>>
>>> And like all the other daytime dross the BBC transmit it will be prime
>>> time evening viewing the week after.
>>>
>>> There will be an omnibus version broadcast on Saturday, and repeated on
>>> Sunday.
>>>
>>> Give it a few months and there will be " classic" Riggers episodes
>>> broadcast on BBC4, starting with episode one.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Alternatively the BBC could use the licence payers money to commission
Jeff Gaines
Jul 20, 2019, 3:44:29 AM7/20/19
to
On 20/07/2019 in message <qgtmut$1fib$1...@gioia.aioe.org> Bill Wright wrote:
>An exciting new BBC drama for daytime TV!
I was about to take my specimen of urine to the surgery but I see you've
>An exciting new BBC drama for daytime TV!
already taken it :-)
--
Jeff Gaines Wiltshire UK
Those are my principles – and if you don’t like them, well, I have
others.
(Groucho Marx)
brightside
Jul 20, 2019, 4:53:22 AM7/20/19
to
non-overpoweringappropriate music?
--
brightside
newshound
Jul 20, 2019, 4:57:56 AM7/20/19
to
On 20/07/2019 08:44, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 20/07/2019 in message <qgtmut$1fib$1...@gioia.aioe.org> Bill Wright wrote:
>
>> An exciting new BBC drama for daytime TV!
>
> I was about to take my specimen of urine to the surgery but I see you've
> already taken it :-)
>
It had me going for a few seconds. I reckon it's a pretty good pitch,
> On 20/07/2019 in message <qgtmut$1fib$1...@gioia.aioe.org> Bill Wright wrote:
>
>> An exciting new BBC drama for daytime TV!
>
> I was about to take my specimen of urine to the surgery but I see you've
> already taken it :-)
>
perhaps Bert Coules could put you in touch with someone (or does he only
have radio contacts?)
Andy Burns
Jul 20, 2019, 5:03:05 AM7/20/19
to
Bill Wright wrote:
> An exciting new BBC drama for daytime TV!
> Starting soon on BBC1!
Surely if it was that good, they'd delay it until the launch of britbox?
> An exciting new BBC drama for daytime TV!
> Starting soon on BBC1!
Anyone else see that being as "successful" as topup TV?
Roderick Stewart
Jul 20, 2019, 5:49:07 AM7/20/19
to
On Sat, 20 Jul 2019 08:41:03 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
<bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Don't you think the name Britbox is naff in the extreme, how many management
>meetings and focus groups did it take to come up with that little gem?
Indeed. It rhymes with "Shitbox". They didn't think it through at all,
<bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Don't you think the name Britbox is naff in the extreme, how many management
>meetings and focus groups did it take to come up with that little gem?
did they? Perhaps modern focus groups are only comprised of
diversity-trained millennial snowflakes raised in safe spaces where
they've never heard any real everyday words. We can only guess.
Rod.
The Natural Philosopher
Jul 20, 2019, 6:54:29 AM7/20/19
to
--
I would rather have questions that cannot be answered...
...than to have answers that cannot be questioned
Richard Feynman
Andrew
Jul 20, 2019, 7:27:29 AM7/20/19
to
On 20/07/2019 01:24, Bill Wright wrote:
> THE RIGGERS
>
> An exciting new BBC drama for daytime TV!
>
> Starting soon on BBC1!
>
> Following on in the footsteps of ‘Doctors’, the new series will have
> social justice and gritty story lines at its heart. The cast members
> were of course all chosen on talent grounds alone, but by lucky chance
> the result is a marvellously diverse ensemble, truly representative of
> our wonderfully diverse modern Britain.
>
> The show centres on the lives and loves of a team of South Yorkshire
> aerial riggers. The team leader and business owner is ‘Muff’ Muncha, a
> formidable lady of Polish origin. Muff has a screen-filling presence
> that no-one can ignore. She can beat any of the men she employs at
> ladder climbing, aerial rigging, and customer dissing. Muff is married
> to Gloria Armstrong, who owns Macho, the female-only gym next door.
>
They could combine it with a 'spot the ball competition', but in
>
> An exciting new BBC drama for daytime TV!
>
> Starting soon on BBC1!
>
> Following on in the footsteps of ‘Doctors’, the new series will have
> social justice and gritty story lines at its heart. The cast members
> were of course all chosen on talent grounds alone, but by lucky chance
> the result is a marvellously diverse ensemble, truly representative of
> our wonderfully diverse modern Britain.
>
> The show centres on the lives and loves of a team of South Yorkshire
> aerial riggers. The team leader and business owner is ‘Muff’ Muncha, a
> formidable lady of Polish origin. Muff has a screen-filling presence
> that no-one can ignore. She can beat any of the men she employs at
> ladder climbing, aerial rigging, and customer dissing. Muff is married
> to Gloria Armstrong, who owns Macho, the female-only gym next door.
>
this case, spot the point on the ground where the rigger who
didn't bother with a ladder anchor, hits terra firma.
Andrew
Jul 20, 2019, 7:31:02 AM7/20/19
to
On 20/07/2019 08:41, Brian Gaff wrote:
> Don't you think the name Britbox is naff in the extreme, how many management
> meetings and focus groups did it take to come up with that little gem?
>
>
> Brian
>
I wonder if we will be able to watch Alf Garnet in full Silly-old-moo
> Don't you think the name Britbox is naff in the extreme, how many management
> meetings and focus groups did it take to come up with that little gem?
>
>
> Brian
>
mode, or even the black & white minstrels on this 'channel'.?
Hopefully we will be able to view all the old Doomwatch, and
Tomorrows World broadcasts.
Andrew
Jul 20, 2019, 7:33:44 AM7/20/19
to
On 20/07/2019 09:53, brightside wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Jul 2019 01:24:00 +0100, Bill Wright
> <wrights...@f2s.com> wrote:
>
>> THE RIGGERS
>>
>> An exciting new BBC drama for daytime TV!
>>
>> Starting soon on BBC1!
>>
<snip>
> <wrights...@f2s.com> wrote:
>
>> THE RIGGERS
>>
>> An exciting new BBC drama for daytime TV!
>>
>> Starting soon on BBC1!
>>
>
>
> Who will be providing the incidental / background
> non-overpoweringappropriate music?
>
Queen - "Another one bites the dust"
>
> Who will be providing the incidental / background
> non-overpoweringappropriate music?
>
Andrew
Jul 20, 2019, 7:38:35 AM7/20/19
to
On 20/07/2019 08:44, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 20/07/2019 in message <qgtmut$1fib$1...@gioia.aioe.org> Bill Wright wrote:
>
>> An exciting new BBC drama for daytime TV!
>
> I was about to take my specimen of urine to the surgery but I see you've
> already taken it :-)
>
Will the ancient ITV programs still show the original non-PC
>
>> An exciting new BBC drama for daytime TV!
>
> I was about to take my specimen of urine to the surgery but I see you've
> already taken it :-)
>
adverts though ?.
Dave Plowman (News)
Jul 20, 2019, 7:57:00 AM7/20/19
to
Bored again, Bill? ;-)
--
*There are two kinds of pedestrians... the quick and the dead.
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
--
*There are two kinds of pedestrians... the quick and the dead.
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Cursitor Doom
Jul 20, 2019, 9:50:47 AM7/20/19
to
On Sat, 20 Jul 2019 01:24:00 +0100, Bill Wright wrote:
> THE RIGGERS
>
> An exciting new BBC drama for daytime TV!
>
> Starting soon on BBC1!
Didn't read any further after the above line.
> THE RIGGERS
>
> An exciting new BBC drama for daytime TV!
>
> Starting soon on BBC1!
--
Leave first - THEN negotiate!
alan_m
Jul 20, 2019, 9:55:58 AM7/20/19
to
On 20/07/2019 09:53, brightside wrote:
>
>
> Who will be providing the incidental / background
> non-overpoweringappropriate music?
>
It will be Rap (with the silent C)
> non-overpoweringappropriate music?
>
Cursitor Doom
Jul 20, 2019, 10:08:10 AM7/20/19
to
On Sat, 20 Jul 2019 12:30:20 +0100, Andrew wrote:
> I wonder if we will be able to watch Alf Garnet in full Silly-old-moo
> mode
That and Steptoe & Son (and Dad's Army perhaps) were about the only
> I wonder if we will be able to watch Alf Garnet in full Silly-old-moo
> mode
genuinely brilliant TV shows to ever come out of the BBC. They've been
followed by 50 years of SHITE.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Jul 20, 2019, 10:56:37 AM7/20/19
to
In message <qgv67m$4vi$5...@dont-email.me>, Cursitor Doom <C...@noreply.com>
writes:
>
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
"In the _car_-park? What are you doing there?" "Parking cars, what else does
one
do in a car-park?" (First series, fit the fifth.)
writes:
>On Sat, 20 Jul 2019 01:24:00 +0100, Bill Wright wrote:
>
>> THE RIGGERS
>>
>> An exciting new BBC drama for daytime TV!
>>
>> Starting soon on BBC1!
>
>Didn't read any further after the above line.
>
You missed a gem then. It's not what it seems (-:
>
>> THE RIGGERS
>>
>> An exciting new BBC drama for daytime TV!
>>
>> Starting soon on BBC1!
>
>Didn't read any further after the above line.
>
>
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
"In the _car_-park? What are you doing there?" "Parking cars, what else does
one
do in a car-park?" (First series, fit the fifth.)
MB
Jul 20, 2019, 12:43:16 PM7/20/19
to
On 20/07/2019 09:53, brightside wrote:
> Who will be providing the incidental / background
> non-overpoweringappropriate music?
Some of the stories we heard about our riggers at work, would not be
> non-overpoweringappropriate music?
allowed on broadcast TV.
Cursitor Doom
Jul 20, 2019, 7:32:24 PM7/20/19
to
On Sat, 20 Jul 2019 15:55:11 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> You missed a gem then. It's not what it seems (-:
There is *nothing* on the BBC which is what it seems.
> You missed a gem then. It's not what it seems (-:
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Jul 20, 2019, 8:55:35 PM7/20/19
to
In message <qh08a7$4ih$9...@dont-email.me>, Cursitor Doom <C...@noreply.com>
writes:
you were expecting.
>
Which, perhaps with a _little_ watering down, it would be great fun if
someone _was_ to submit it as an apparently serious suggestion, to see
how far it got before someone realised.
significant or prolonged. Security software is to protect the computer, not
the primary use of the computer.
- VanguardLH in alt.windows7.general, 2018-1-28
writes:
>On Sat, 20 Jul 2019 15:55:11 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>
>> You missed a gem then. It's not what it seems (-:
>
>There is *nothing* on the BBC which is what it seems.
>
Go back and read Bill's post in full. It is a beautiful *parody* of what
>
>> You missed a gem then. It's not what it seems (-:
>
>There is *nothing* on the BBC which is what it seems.
>
you were expecting.
>
Which, perhaps with a _little_ watering down, it would be great fun if
someone _was_ to submit it as an apparently serious suggestion, to see
how far it got before someone realised.
>
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Anything you add for security will slow the computer but it shouldn't be
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
significant or prolonged. Security software is to protect the computer, not
the primary use of the computer.
- VanguardLH in alt.windows7.general, 2018-1-28
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Jul 20, 2019, 8:55:35 PM7/20/19
to
In message <kfGdnStJeKoOSq_A...@brightview.co.uk>,
Sounds like the sort that ought to be subjected to periodic applications
of contact cleaner ... (-:
of contact cleaner ... (-:
Richard
Jul 21, 2019, 3:48:19 AM7/21/19
to
On 21/07/2019 01:52, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <qh08a7$4ih$9...@dont-email.me>, Cursitor Doom <C...@noreply.com>
> writes:
>> On Sat, 20 Jul 2019 15:55:11 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>
>>> You missed a gem then. It's not what it seems (-:
>>
>> There is *nothing* on the BBC which is what it seems.
>>
> Go back and read Bill's post in full. It is a beautiful *parody* of what
> you were expecting.
>>
> Which, perhaps with a _little_ watering down, it would be great fun if
> someone _was_ to submit it as an apparently serious suggestion, to see
> how far it got before someone realised.
Sometimes I get the feeling Mr Doom is Hyacinth Bucket's equivalent and
> In message <qh08a7$4ih$9...@dont-email.me>, Cursitor Doom <C...@noreply.com>
> writes:
>> On Sat, 20 Jul 2019 15:55:11 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>
>>> You missed a gem then. It's not what it seems (-:
>>
>> There is *nothing* on the BBC which is what it seems.
>>
> Go back and read Bill's post in full. It is a beautiful *parody* of what
> you were expecting.
>>
> Which, perhaps with a _little_ watering down, it would be great fun if
> someone _was_ to submit it as an apparently serious suggestion, to see
> how far it got before someone realised.
he is really Cursitor Dumb.
Brian Gaff
Jul 21, 2019, 4:05:33 AM7/21/19
to
I would have thought that will be on the pleb channel, all the new first run
stuff will be surely on the subscription channel. After all it is hardly any
good rerunning old stuff, nobody would pay for it on its own.
I think the golden age of @TV is now behind us, Even on the Internet
advertising is far less effective at raising funds to keep things free, so
in the end I think the various services will have to go subscription, and
many people will simply walk away form TV. Maybe a new golden age of people
talking to each other is dawning?
news:qguu1k$mv3$1...@gioia.aioe.org...
stuff will be surely on the subscription channel. After all it is hardly any
good rerunning old stuff, nobody would pay for it on its own.
I think the golden age of @TV is now behind us, Even on the Internet
advertising is far less effective at raising funds to keep things free, so
in the end I think the various services will have to go subscription, and
many people will simply walk away form TV. Maybe a new golden age of people
talking to each other is dawning?
Brian
--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Andrew" <Andrew9...@mybtinternet.com> wrote in message
--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
news:qguu1k$mv3$1...@gioia.aioe.org...
Brian Gaff
Jul 21, 2019, 4:12:42 AM7/21/19
to
I would not say that, but certainly as time has gone on the play it safe cos
we want to sell it abroad thing is very obvious.
1. take it all back in house
2. ask the public what they want but is not provided by the commercial
sector
3 ask them how much they are prepared to pay for it.
One has to realise that local radio and radio in general is always going to
have to be provided by somebody, and I think a service with no adverts and
hence no vested interests and format issues is still needed since we have
all seen what the private sector is doing to commercial radio. There are
huge networks being formed by the back door and banal and shallow content
designed to be listened to for 20 mins at a time in a vehicle or on a smart
phone.
Somebody needs to supply the old markets which are still out there, even
with streaming playlists and all of that. people like personalities and
music they may not have experienced as well as controversial subjects and
minority interests. You cannot bring the whole thing down to the level of
its too expensive to do it.
news:qgv789$4vi$8...@dont-email.me...
we want to sell it abroad thing is very obvious.
1. take it all back in house
2. ask the public what they want but is not provided by the commercial
sector
3 ask them how much they are prepared to pay for it.
One has to realise that local radio and radio in general is always going to
have to be provided by somebody, and I think a service with no adverts and
hence no vested interests and format issues is still needed since we have
all seen what the private sector is doing to commercial radio. There are
huge networks being formed by the back door and banal and shallow content
designed to be listened to for 20 mins at a time in a vehicle or on a smart
phone.
Somebody needs to supply the old markets which are still out there, even
with streaming playlists and all of that. people like personalities and
music they may not have experienced as well as controversial subjects and
minority interests. You cannot bring the whole thing down to the level of
its too expensive to do it.
Brian
--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Cursitor Doom" <C...@noreply.com> wrote in message
--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
news:qgv789$4vi$8...@dont-email.me...
Brian Gaff
Jul 21, 2019, 4:21:10 AM7/21/19
to
No I knew he was on his hobby horse by the comments on people of colour or
ethnicity being involved not due to talent but to be politically correct.
Besides those of you here who do not know may wish to know that Aerial
rigging was his vocation for many years and so was writing quirky
observations on the sort of customers one gets, in traditional paper
magazines.
I never used to believe a lot of it, until I started to run a business
myself in the 80s of mail order computer items. They say there is nowt so
queer as folk, and they are indeed right, and nor does the UK have the
monopoly on quirkiness either.
news:weqMA5rt...@255soft.uk...
ethnicity being involved not due to talent but to be politically correct.
Besides those of you here who do not know may wish to know that Aerial
rigging was his vocation for many years and so was writing quirky
observations on the sort of customers one gets, in traditional paper
magazines.
I never used to believe a lot of it, until I started to run a business
myself in the 80s of mail order computer items. They say there is nowt so
queer as folk, and they are indeed right, and nor does the UK have the
monopoly on quirkiness either.
Brian
--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6...@255soft.uk> wrote in message
--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
news:weqMA5rt...@255soft.uk...
Pancho
Jul 21, 2019, 5:02:52 AM7/21/19
to
On 20/07/2019 01:24, Bill Wright wrote:
> Many of the customers are old and therefore ignorant of the true
> realities of life;
He doesn't realise that he doesn't need to pay for a TV licence and
> realities of life;
doesn't need to watch BBC.
If you choose to pay for that shit please don't whine about it.
Cursitor Doom
Jul 21, 2019, 5:06:39 AM7/21/19
to
On Sat, 20 Jul 2019 15:55:11 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> You missed a gem then. It's not what it seems (-:
I went back and read it. Highly amusing and yet very accurate; thanks!
Brian Gaff
Jul 21, 2019, 5:38:06 AM7/21/19
to
No I knew he was on his hobby horse by the comments on people of colour or
ethnicity being involved not due to talent but to be politically correct.
Besides those of you here who do not know may wish to know that Aerial
rigging was his vocation for many years and so was writing quirky
observations on the sort of customers one gets, in traditional paper
magazines.
I never used to believe a lot of it, until I started to run a business
myself in the 80s of mail order computer items. They say there is nowt so
queer as folk, and they are indeed right, and nor does the UK have the
monopoly on quirkiness either.
Brian
--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6...@255soft.uk> wrote in message
news:a7CWJfaP...@255soft.uk...
ethnicity being involved not due to talent but to be politically correct.
Besides those of you here who do not know may wish to know that Aerial
rigging was his vocation for many years and so was writing quirky
observations on the sort of customers one gets, in traditional paper
magazines.
I never used to believe a lot of it, until I started to run a business
myself in the 80s of mail order computer items. They say there is nowt so
queer as folk, and they are indeed right, and nor does the UK have the
monopoly on quirkiness either.
Brian
--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6...@255soft.uk> wrote in message
Richard
Jul 21, 2019, 6:12:29 AM7/21/19
to
On 21/07/2019 09:21, Brian Gaff wrote:
> No I knew he was on his hobby horse by the comments on people of colour
He didn't mention "people of colour", probably because he is not stupid
> No I knew he was on his hobby horse by the comments on people of colour
enough to use the term.
What a fucking ridiculous PC term it is. as we all have a colour.
JNugent
Jul 21, 2019, 7:45:26 AM7/21/19
to
On 20/07/2019 15:08, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Jul 2019 12:30:20 +0100, Andrew wrote:
>
>> I wonder if we will be able to watch Alf Garnet in full Silly-old-moo
>> mode
>
> That and Steptoe & Son (and Dad's Army perhaps) were about the only
> genuinely brilliant TV shows to ever come out of the BBC. They've been
> followed by 50 years of SHITE.
Basil Fawlty?
> On Sat, 20 Jul 2019 12:30:20 +0100, Andrew wrote:
>
>> I wonder if we will be able to watch Alf Garnet in full Silly-old-moo
>> mode
>
> That and Steptoe & Son (and Dad's Army perhaps) were about the only
> genuinely brilliant TV shows to ever come out of the BBC. They've been
> followed by 50 years of SHITE.
Alan Partridge?
Indy Jess John
Jul 21, 2019, 10:53:43 AM7/21/19
to
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Jul 21, 2019, 11:09:06 AM7/21/19
to
In message <qh1dqb$1iel$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Richard
Yes. And mine's not white, it's pink. I don't know anyone who's white.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
User Error: Replace user, hit any key to continue.
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Indy Jess John
Jul 21, 2019, 12:12:47 PM7/21/19
to
On 21/07/2019 16:07, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message<qh1dqb$1iel$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Richard
> <smit...@btinternet.com.invalid> writes:
>> On 21/07/2019 09:21, Brian Gaff wrote:
>>> No I knew he was on his hobby horse by the comments on people of
>>> colour
>>
>> He didn't mention "people of colour", probably because he is not stupid
>> enough to use the term.
>>
>> What a fucking ridiculous PC term it is. as we all have a colour.
>
> Yes. And mine's not white, it's pink. I don't know anyone who's white.
Albinos probably fall into that category. There are not many of them.
> In message<qh1dqb$1iel$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Richard
> <smit...@btinternet.com.invalid> writes:
>> On 21/07/2019 09:21, Brian Gaff wrote:
>>> No I knew he was on his hobby horse by the comments on people of
>>> colour
>>
>> He didn't mention "people of colour", probably because he is not stupid
>> enough to use the term.
>>
>> What a fucking ridiculous PC term it is. as we all have a colour.
>
> Yes. And mine's not white, it's pink. I don't know anyone who's white.
Jim
Ian Jackson
Jul 21, 2019, 12:20:02 PM7/21/19
to
In message <W%_YE.357772$NT5.2...@fx23.am4>, Indy Jess John
<jimw...@OMITblueyonder.co.uk> writes
I always hoped to catch a glimpse of Mrs Slocombe's pussy.
--
Ian
<jimw...@OMITblueyonder.co.uk> writes
--
Ian
John Williamson
Jul 21, 2019, 12:22:29 PM7/21/19
to
On 21/07/2019 17:18, Tim Streater wrote:
> In article <1a0ZE.291001$a9.2...@fx31.am4>, Indy Jess John
> They will prolly be slightly pink too.
>
The one I used to know certainly was, and went redder very quickly in
the sunshine. Their irises were pink. All of their hair was pure white,
though.
--
Tciao for Now!
John.
> In article <1a0ZE.291001$a9.2...@fx31.am4>, Indy Jess John
>
The one I used to know certainly was, and went redder very quickly in
the sunshine. Their irises were pink. All of their hair was pure white,
though.
--
Tciao for Now!
John.
Cursitor Doom
Jul 21, 2019, 1:37:54 PM7/21/19
to
On Sun, 21 Jul 2019 17:12:45 +0100, Indy Jess John wrote:
> On 21/07/2019 16:07, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> In message<qh1dqb$1iel$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Richard
>> <smit...@btinternet.com.invalid> writes:
>>> On 21/07/2019 09:21, Brian Gaff wrote:
>>>> No I knew he was on his hobby horse by the comments on people of
>>>> colour
>>>
>>> He didn't mention "people of colour", probably because he is not
>>> stupid enough to use the term.
>>>
>>> What a fucking ridiculous PC term it is. as we all have a colour.
>>
>> Yes. And mine's not white, it's pink. I don't know anyone who's white.
>
People who suffer from iron deficiency anaemia?
> On 21/07/2019 16:07, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> In message<qh1dqb$1iel$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Richard
>> <smit...@btinternet.com.invalid> writes:
>>> On 21/07/2019 09:21, Brian Gaff wrote:
>>>> No I knew he was on his hobby horse by the comments on people of
>>>> colour
>>>
>>> He didn't mention "people of colour", probably because he is not
>>> stupid enough to use the term.
>>>
>>> What a fucking ridiculous PC term it is. as we all have a colour.
>>
>> Yes. And mine's not white, it's pink. I don't know anyone who's white.
>
Bill Wright
Jul 21, 2019, 7:23:47 PM7/21/19
to
On 21/07/2019 10:06, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Jul 2019 15:55:11 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>
>> You missed a gem then. It's not what it seems (-:
>
>
> I went back and read it. Highly amusing and yet very accurate; thanks!
>
>
>
Thank you.
> On Sat, 20 Jul 2019 15:55:11 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>
>> You missed a gem then. It's not what it seems (-:
>
>
> I went back and read it. Highly amusing and yet very accurate; thanks!
>
>
>
Bill
Rod Speed
Jul 21, 2019, 8:58:29 PM7/21/19
to
Brian Gaff <bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote
> I would have thought that will be on the pleb channel, all the new first
> run stuff will be surely on the subscription channel.
Not with the Beeb, stupid.
> After all it is hardly any good rerunning old stuff, nobody would pay for
> it on its own.
> I think the golden age of @TV is now behind us,
Unlikely, and it wasn’t golden, it was black and white.
> Even on the Internet advertising is far less effective at raising funds to
> keep things free,
Works for wikipedia...
> so in the end I think the various services will have to go subscription,
No need for the Beeb, you get to pay the subscription even if
you don’t bother to watch it much at all. That isnt voluntary.
> and many people will simply walk away form TV.
They've been doing that for a long time
now, most to the subscription services.
> Maybe a new golden age of people talking to each other is dawning?
They've been doing that for a long time now, stupid.
Mostly for free when you have the internet already.
> I would have thought that will be on the pleb channel, all the new first
> run stuff will be surely on the subscription channel.
> After all it is hardly any good rerunning old stuff, nobody would pay for
> it on its own.
> I think the golden age of @TV is now behind us,
> Even on the Internet advertising is far less effective at raising funds to
> keep things free,
> so in the end I think the various services will have to go subscription,
you don’t bother to watch it much at all. That isnt voluntary.
> and many people will simply walk away form TV.
now, most to the subscription services.
> Maybe a new golden age of people talking to each other is dawning?
Mostly for free when you have the internet already.
Swer
Jul 21, 2019, 9:56:18 PM7/21/19
to
"Indy Jess John" <jimw...@OMITblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1a0ZE.291001$a9.2...@fx31.am4...
> There are not many of them.
And white is a mixture of colours anyway.
Swer
Jul 21, 2019, 10:03:05 PM7/21/19
to
news:qh27th$lib$7...@dont-email.me...
Those are still off white.
alan_m
Jul 22, 2019, 2:16:02 AM7/22/19
to
almost as though certain presenters need to tell us that the interesting
person, or the interesting story being told, is enhanced by knowing that
the interviewee is a person of colour (as well as being a disabled, a
one parent family and gay).
--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk
MB
Jul 22, 2019, 3:24:25 AM7/22/19
to
On 22/07/2019 01:58, Rod Speed wrote:
>> Even on the Internet advertising is far less effective at raising
>> funds to keep things free,
>
> Works for wikipedia...
I suspect Wonkypedia raises a lot by selling content. There are lots of
>> Even on the Internet advertising is far less effective at raising
>> funds to keep things free,
>
> Works for wikipedia...
books on sale that are basically printouts of Wonkypedia pages, I
presume that pay to use it though of course the people who contributed
the pages to Wonkypedia don't get anything.
Peeler
Jul 22, 2019, 4:16:55 AM7/22/19
to
On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 10:58:20 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:
>
> Not with the Beeb, stupid.
Now ALSO an expert on the BBC, you totally fucked up senile Ozzie pest? LOL
--
dennis@home to retarded senile Rot:
"sod off rod you don't have a clue about anything."
Message-ID: <uV9lE.196195$cx5....@fx46.iad>
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:
>
> Not with the Beeb, stupid.
--
dennis@home to retarded senile Rot:
"sod off rod you don't have a clue about anything."
Message-ID: <uV9lE.196195$cx5....@fx46.iad>
Peeler
Jul 22, 2019, 4:21:06 AM7/22/19
to
On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 12:02:54 +1000, Swer, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:
>> People who suffer from iron deficiency anaemia?
>
> Those are still off white.
YOU are STILL a ridiculous auto-contradicting senile idiot! LOL
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:
>> People who suffer from iron deficiency anaemia?
>
> Those are still off white.
--
gfre...@aol.com addressing nym-shifting senile Rodent:
"You on the other hand are a heavyweight bullshitter who demonstrates
your particular prowess at it every day."
MID: <rufg9ep6ggjdt3uek...@4ax.com>
Peeler
Jul 22, 2019, 4:21:51 AM7/22/19
to
On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 11:56:08 +1000, Swer, better known as cantankerous
--
MrTu...@down.the.farm about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID: <ps10v9$uo2$1...@gioia.aioe.org>
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:
>> Albinos probably fall into that category.
>
> No they do not.
LOL Auto-contradicting senile asshole!
>
> No they do not.
--
MrTu...@down.the.farm about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID: <ps10v9$uo2$1...@gioia.aioe.org>
Roderick Stewart
Jul 22, 2019, 5:23:04 AM7/22/19
to
On Sun, 21 Jul 2019 10:02:50 +0100, Pancho
<Pancho.Do...@outlook.com> wrote:
>> Many of the customers are old and therefore ignorant of the true
>> realities of life;
>
>He doesn't realise that he doesn't need to pay for a TV licence and
>doesn't need to watch BBC.
True, but you still have to *pay* for the BBC if you want to watch
<Pancho.Do...@outlook.com> wrote:
>> Many of the customers are old and therefore ignorant of the true
>> realities of life;
>
>He doesn't realise that he doesn't need to pay for a TV licence and
>doesn't need to watch BBC.
*any* broadcast TV, even if it's not from the BBC
>If you choose to pay for that shit please don't whine about it.
television altogether, you *can't* choose not to pay for the BBC.
In the days when BBC Television was the only source of television
material in existence, this made sense, but now there's plenty of
other material to watch.
Rod.
Roderick Stewart
Jul 22, 2019, 5:26:15 AM7/22/19
to
On Sun, 21 Jul 2019 11:12:27 +0100, Richard
<smit...@btinternet.com.invalid> wrote:
>> No I knew he was on his hobby horse by the comments on people of colour
>
>He didn't mention "people of colour", probably because he is not stupid
>enough to use the term.
>
>What a fucking ridiculous PC term it is. as we all have a colour.
Agreed. I couldn't care less what colour anybody is, but
<smit...@btinternet.com.invalid> wrote:
>> No I knew he was on his hobby horse by the comments on people of colour
>
>He didn't mention "people of colour", probably because he is not stupid
>enough to use the term.
>
>What a fucking ridiculous PC term it is. as we all have a colour.
linguistically "people of colour" is an abomination. What does it make
me, I wonder - a "person of monochrome" perhaps?
Rod.
Dave Plowman (News)
Jul 22, 2019, 6:15:20 AM7/22/19
to
In article <gpl2l1...@mid.individual.net>,
need to on TV.
--
*Virtual reality is its own reward*
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
alan_m <ju...@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> It is used on Radio 4 a lot when someone is being interviewed. It's
> almost as though certain presenters need to tell us that the interesting
> person, or the interesting story being told, is enhanced by knowing that
> the interviewee is a person of colour (as well as being a disabled, a
> one parent family and gay).
In radio, it is fairly common to give the sort of information you'd not
> It is used on Radio 4 a lot when someone is being interviewed. It's
> almost as though certain presenters need to tell us that the interesting
> person, or the interesting story being told, is enhanced by knowing that
> the interviewee is a person of colour (as well as being a disabled, a
> one parent family and gay).
need to on TV.
--
*Virtual reality is its own reward*
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
MB
Jul 22, 2019, 7:08:21 AM7/22/19
to
On 22/07/2019 11:11, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In radio, it is fairly common to give the sort of information you'd not
> need to on TV.
Of course it varies from day to day or person to person. Some days
> In radio, it is fairly common to give the sort of information you'd not
> need to on TV.
there will be complaints about someone's colour being mentioned. Then
the next day the approved terminology will have changed. Basically you
can't win!
Andrew
Jul 23, 2019, 1:08:45 PM7/23/19
to
On 21/07/2019 16:17, Pamela wrote:
> On 08:48 21 Jul 2019, Richard <smit...@btinternet.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 21/07/2019 01:52, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>> In message <qh08a7$4ih$9...@dont-email.me>, Cursitor Doom <C...@noreply.com>
>>>>
>>> Go back and read Bill's post in full. It is a beautiful *parody* of
>>> what you were expecting.
>>>>
>>> Which, perhaps with a _little_ watering down, it would be great fun if
>>> someone _was_ to submit it as an apparently serious suggestion, to see
>>> how far it got before someone realised.
>>
>> Sometimes I get the feeling Mr Doom is Hyacinth Bucket's equivalent and
>> he is really Cursitor Dumb.
>
> Many people have realised that about Cursitor Doom already. Who else but
> a fantasist nerd would choose an obscure comic book character as a nym?
>
> One of Cursitor's funniest claims is how he, living abroad, was a major
> financial backer of TBP which he founded with Nigel Farage. Yes, really!
> What he really means is he stacks the chairs after the local branch
> meeting.
>
> Cursitor Doom: "I helped Nigel set up TBP and am one of their major
> backers. Why do you think I vanished during the early part of this
> year?"
>
> http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=156372194500
>
He could well part of the group that have been tasked with
infiltrating newsgroups, social-media, 'influencer' sites to
spread their poison, regardless of whether they are
momentum activists, russians, chinese, brexiteers or whatever.
> On 08:48 21 Jul 2019, Richard <smit...@btinternet.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 21/07/2019 01:52, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>> In message <qh08a7$4ih$9...@dont-email.me>, Cursitor Doom <C...@noreply.com>
>>> writes:
>>>> On Sat, 20 Jul 2019 15:55:11 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You missed a gem then. It's not what it seems (-:
>>>>
>>>> There is *nothing* on the BBC which is what it seems.
>>>> On Sat, 20 Jul 2019 15:55:11 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You missed a gem then. It's not what it seems (-:
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Go back and read Bill's post in full. It is a beautiful *parody* of
>>> what you were expecting.
>>>>
>>> Which, perhaps with a _little_ watering down, it would be great fun if
>>> someone _was_ to submit it as an apparently serious suggestion, to see
>>> how far it got before someone realised.
>>
>> Sometimes I get the feeling Mr Doom is Hyacinth Bucket's equivalent and
>> he is really Cursitor Dumb.
>
> Many people have realised that about Cursitor Doom already. Who else but
> a fantasist nerd would choose an obscure comic book character as a nym?
>
> One of Cursitor's funniest claims is how he, living abroad, was a major
> financial backer of TBP which he founded with Nigel Farage. Yes, really!
> What he really means is he stacks the chairs after the local branch
> meeting.
>
> Cursitor Doom: "I helped Nigel set up TBP and am one of their major
> backers. Why do you think I vanished during the early part of this
> year?"
>
> http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=156372194500
>
He could well part of the group that have been tasked with
infiltrating newsgroups, social-media, 'influencer' sites to
spread their poison, regardless of whether they are
momentum activists, russians, chinese, brexiteers or whatever.
The Natural Philosopher
Jul 23, 2019, 1:26:59 PM7/23/19
to
--
If I had all the money I've spent on drink...
..I'd spend it on drink.
Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End)
Cursitor Doom
Jul 23, 2019, 3:36:23 PM7/23/19
to
On Tue, 23 Jul 2019 18:08:01 +0100, Andrew wrote:
>>> Sometimes I get the feeling Mr Doom is Hyacinth Bucket's equivalent
>>> and he is really Cursitor Dumb.
>>
>> Many people have realised that about Cursitor Doom already. Who else
>> but a fantasist nerd would choose an obscure comic book character as a
>> nym?
>>
>> One of Cursitor's funniest claims is how he, living abroad, was a major
>> financial backer of TBP which he founded with Nigel Farage. Yes,
>> really!
>> What he really means is he stacks the chairs after the local branch
>> meeting.
>>
>> Cursitor Doom: "I helped Nigel set up TBP and am one of their
>> major backers. Why do you think I vanished during the early part
>> of this year?"
>>
>> http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=156372194500
>>
>>
> He could well part of the group that have been tasked with infiltrating
> newsgroups, social-media, 'influencer' sites to spread their poison,
> regardless of whether they are momentum activists, russians, chinese,
> brexiteers or whatever.
Dave, you missed out the "tax-dodger" smear. Just thought I'd best remind
>>> Sometimes I get the feeling Mr Doom is Hyacinth Bucket's equivalent
>>> and he is really Cursitor Dumb.
>>
>> Many people have realised that about Cursitor Doom already. Who else
>> but a fantasist nerd would choose an obscure comic book character as a
>> nym?
>>
>> One of Cursitor's funniest claims is how he, living abroad, was a major
>> financial backer of TBP which he founded with Nigel Farage. Yes,
>> really!
>> What he really means is he stacks the chairs after the local branch
>> meeting.
>>
>> Cursitor Doom: "I helped Nigel set up TBP and am one of their
>> major backers. Why do you think I vanished during the early part
>> of this year?"
>>
>> http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=156372194500
>>
>>
> He could well part of the group that have been tasked with infiltrating
> newsgroups, social-media, 'influencer' sites to spread their poison,
> regardless of whether they are momentum activists, russians, chinese,
> brexiteers or whatever.
you; don't want you and your pack of losers selling yourselves short! ;->
Cursitor Doom
Jul 23, 2019, 3:40:04 PM7/23/19
to
On Tue, 23 Jul 2019 18:26:58 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> I doubt it. He's been around for years
No point anyway, NP. The people on Usenet are notorious for never
> I doubt it. He's been around for years
changing their minds about anything, despite the weight of evidence
presented. Can you name me one person who's switched from Remoan to Leave
or vice versa? I can't think of a single one.
Tim Lamb
Jul 23, 2019, 4:21:50 PM7/23/19
to
In message <qh7nqj$pq6$9...@dont-email.me>, Cursitor Doom <C...@noreply.com>
writes
Spaced Tim was an uncertain on polling day:-)
One could point to the lack of measurable benefits for leaving other
than recovering some ephemeral sovereignty, a financial contribution not
already rebated and the expectation of recovering already sold fishing
rights. Really comes down to TNPs fear of being told what to do by
someone whose grandfather might have worn jackboots.
Remaining is equally vague in terms of future benefits but 40 years of
stability and a GNP hugely larger than most countries our size must
count for something.
--
Tim Lamb
writes
One could point to the lack of measurable benefits for leaving other
than recovering some ephemeral sovereignty, a financial contribution not
already rebated and the expectation of recovering already sold fishing
rights. Really comes down to TNPs fear of being told what to do by
someone whose grandfather might have worn jackboots.
Remaining is equally vague in terms of future benefits but 40 years of
stability and a GNP hugely larger than most countries our size must
count for something.
--
Tim Lamb
Dave Plowman (News)
Jul 24, 2019, 5:53:42 AM7/24/19
to
In article <qh7njm$pq6$8...@dont-email.me>,
Good to see you pointing this out yourself. I'm sure Andrew will be very
interested. Not quite sure it is a 'smear' when you said it was why you
left the UK. To avoid paying your fair share of running the country.
Perhaps you are ashamed of it. Most decent people would be.
--
*The fact that no one understands you doesn't mean you're an artist
interested. Not quite sure it is a 'smear' when you said it was why you
left the UK. To avoid paying your fair share of running the country.
Perhaps you are ashamed of it. Most decent people would be.
--
*The fact that no one understands you doesn't mean you're an artist
The Natural Philosopher
Jul 24, 2019, 6:10:02 AM7/24/19
to
--
The lifetime of any political organisation is about three years before
its been subverted by the people it tried to warn you about.
Anon.
The Natural Philosopher
Jul 24, 2019, 6:25:14 AM7/24/19
to
On 23/07/2019 21:19, Tim Lamb wrote:
> In message <qh7nqj$pq6$9...@dont-email.me>, Cursitor Doom <C...@noreply.com>
> writes
>> On Tue, 23 Jul 2019 18:26:58 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> I doubt it. He's been around for years
>>
>> No point anyway, NP. The people on Usenet are notorious for never
>> changing their minds about anything, despite the weight of evidence
>> presented. Can you name me one person who's switched from Remoan to Leave
>> or vice versa? I can't think of a single one.
>
> Spaced Tim was an uncertain on polling day:-)
>
> One could point to the lack of measurable benefits for leaving other
> than recovering some ephemeral sovereignty, a financial contribution not
> already rebated and the expectation of recovering already sold fishing
> rights. Really comes down to TNPs fear of being told what to do by
> someone whose grandfather might have worn jackboots.
I am sorry to hear you say that Tim, since taht is not the case and I
> In message <qh7nqj$pq6$9...@dont-email.me>, Cursitor Doom <C...@noreply.com>
> writes
>> On Tue, 23 Jul 2019 18:26:58 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> I doubt it. He's been around for years
>>
>> No point anyway, NP. The people on Usenet are notorious for never
>> changing their minds about anything, despite the weight of evidence
>> presented. Can you name me one person who's switched from Remoan to Leave
>> or vice versa? I can't think of a single one.
>
> Spaced Tim was an uncertain on polling day:-)
>
> One could point to the lack of measurable benefits for leaving other
> than recovering some ephemeral sovereignty, a financial contribution not
> already rebated and the expectation of recovering already sold fishing
> rights. Really comes down to TNPs fear of being told what to do by
> someone whose grandfather might have worn jackboots.
suspect you know it.
It is for me all part of a larget striuglle agqainst kneejerl politics,
the dumbing down of pthe public into dicidel aheep and teh raoe of the
citizens by a criminal elite.
It all starte for me by asking 'why windmills?' when windmills after a
few weeks of analyis, were not a solution to a problem I wasnt sure even
existed.
Since there was no green reason for them I followed the money trail. It
led not just to te EU but to an international caretl of political
slitists in cahoots with global coroprations to maximise their profits
at the expense of the individual who was subjected to a barrage of
propaganda mainly using faau moral arguments like 'social justice' to
justify the rape.
The only way to oppose this for the good of the citizen was to take arms
against the EU. It wasnt so much taht this would in and of itself change
things for the better - in fact in the short term it would probably be
slightly worse - but it would allow of other changes to happen. E.g.
scrapping the climate change act and halving electricity bills thereby.
The only democratic act we were ever wllowed, was te referendum, all
else was verboten, and the EU told us what to do.
By and large the semi-educated professional middle classes were doing
all right, and they supported the EU, but the the rest of the population
was not.
>
> Remaining is equally vague in terms of future benefits but 40 years of
> stability and a GNP hugely larger than most countries our size must
> count for something.
>
You will be claiming that the sun shines because we are in the EU, and
when it goes behind a cloud, its climate change.
Really Tim, I expectd better from you.
In the end it is all about trust, who you trust and why you trust them
In so many ways I have een teh EU, and they must by their actions, know
that they are lying, in so many ways. If they are lying, why? What is so
bad they must conceal it?
Ypou presumably think they are trustworthy.
After all that has happened in the last three years?
Wake up, smell the coffee. Like some pimp when you complian you could do
better on your own, and bets you up to make te point, britain has been
the EUs whore for too long.
MB
Jul 24, 2019, 6:34:35 AM7/24/19
to
On 24/07/2019 10:44, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> Good to see you pointing this out yourself. I'm sure Andrew will be very
> interested. Not quite sure it is a 'smear' when you said it was why you
> left the UK. To avoid paying your fair share of running the country.
> Perhaps you are ashamed of it. Most decent people would be.
There seems to have been a big increase in the amount of trolling since
> Good to see you pointing this out yourself. I'm sure Andrew will be very
> interested. Not quite sure it is a 'smear' when you said it was why you
> left the UK. To avoid paying your fair share of running the country.
> Perhaps you are ashamed of it. Most decent people would be.
a couple of extra newsgroups were added to some threads.
Norman Wells
Jul 24, 2019, 6:49:53 AM7/24/19
to
On 24/07/2019 11:25, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> It is for me all part of a larget striuglle agqainst kneejerl politics,
> the dumbing down of pthe public into dicidel aheep and teh raoe of the
> citizens by a criminal elite.
Is there a version with subtitles please?
> It is for me all part of a larget striuglle agqainst kneejerl politics,
> the dumbing down of pthe public into dicidel aheep and teh raoe of the
> citizens by a criminal elite.
Bill Wright
Jul 24, 2019, 7:56:59 AM7/24/19
to
On 24/07/2019 11:57, Pamela wrote:
The reciprocity theory of antennas also applies here. Read this after
half a bottle of malt and it makes perfect sense.
Bill
half a bottle of malt and it makes perfect sense.
Bill
Indy Jess John
Jul 24, 2019, 9:12:07 AM7/24/19
to
On 24/07/2019 11:55, Pamela wrote:
> Oh my. So our general elections were being thwarted by the wicked EU and
> we never really had any democracy at all?
No. Our general elections were rigged rather differently in that there
was rarely a party on the voting slip that didn't want to remain in the
EU. And even the parties which promised that any further loss of
sovereignty would be put to the public vote always lied about that.
Every politician wants to be in the EU because the EU is gradually
extending the range of people guaranteed immunity from prosecution, and
eventually that scope will include the national governments of EU member
states
It is also worth noting that David Cameron only offered a public
referendum because he was certain the result would be to remain, and he
was worried that without that referendum, too many Tory votes would be
lost to UKIP.
That is why Brexit has to happen. The public will never ever be given
another chance to leave the EU. Only after we have left will the EU
talk sensibly to us. If we stay having invoked Article 50, we will be a
pariah state for many years; we will truly regret staying in.
Regardless of whether an individual voted leave or remain in the
referendum, that is the brush the entire country is now tarred with.
Jim
> Oh my. So our general elections were being thwarted by the wicked EU and
> we never really had any democracy at all?
No. Our general elections were rigged rather differently in that there
was rarely a party on the voting slip that didn't want to remain in the
EU. And even the parties which promised that any further loss of
sovereignty would be put to the public vote always lied about that.
Every politician wants to be in the EU because the EU is gradually
extending the range of people guaranteed immunity from prosecution, and
eventually that scope will include the national governments of EU member
states
It is also worth noting that David Cameron only offered a public
referendum because he was certain the result would be to remain, and he
was worried that without that referendum, too many Tory votes would be
lost to UKIP.
That is why Brexit has to happen. The public will never ever be given
another chance to leave the EU. Only after we have left will the EU
talk sensibly to us. If we stay having invoked Article 50, we will be a
pariah state for many years; we will truly regret staying in.
Regardless of whether an individual voted leave or remain in the
referendum, that is the brush the entire country is now tarred with.
Jim
The Natural Philosopher
Jul 24, 2019, 11:00:33 AM7/24/19
to
On 24/07/2019 14:12, Indy Jess John wrote:
> Regardless of whether an individual voted leave or remain in the
> referendum, that is the brush the entire country is now tarred with.
No, that is thw rose tinted exotic scent of success the whole country
> Regardless of whether an individual voted leave or remain in the
> referendum, that is the brush the entire country is now tarred with.
will bask in.
But remoaners wont hbe happy till they are deep in pigshit again -
imagine not having anything to moan about!
--
How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.
Adolf Hitler
Indy Jess John
Jul 24, 2019, 11:41:38 AM7/24/19
to
On 24/07/2019 16:06, Pamela wrote:
> A second referendum in the light of what we know 3 years later should clean
> this matter up.
The new leader of the Lib Dems has already announced that if there is
another referendum which results in a majority vote to leave, she will
still be campaigning with her party to remain. That doesn't clear (or
clean) matters up!
When there is no recognition that a referendum has any relevance unless
it comes up with the desired answer, it is a very clear indication why
there is no point in another referendum. When the 2016 referendum
result was announced, the vast majority of Parliamentary MPs voted to
honour that decision, and that was recorded in Hansard. They lied, so
why should they be trusted again?
And by the way, we don't know anything more now than we did in 2016,
other than opinions have polarised and hardened after nobody was fooled
by a remainer Prime Minister trying to con Parliament into voting for
Brexit In Name Only which was the most unpalatable of all the possible
options. A proportion of those who voted to leave now think that remain
might be better, and a respectable number who voted remain now think
that democracy requires that they should now vote to leave.
Running a referendum is expensive and the outcome is likely to be very
similar, especially now that the Labour Party has announced it will seek
to remain and the majority of the constituencies who voted leave voted
Labour and now feel badly let down.
Jim
> A second referendum in the light of what we know 3 years later should clean
> this matter up.
The new leader of the Lib Dems has already announced that if there is
another referendum which results in a majority vote to leave, she will
still be campaigning with her party to remain. That doesn't clear (or
clean) matters up!
When there is no recognition that a referendum has any relevance unless
it comes up with the desired answer, it is a very clear indication why
there is no point in another referendum. When the 2016 referendum
result was announced, the vast majority of Parliamentary MPs voted to
honour that decision, and that was recorded in Hansard. They lied, so
why should they be trusted again?
And by the way, we don't know anything more now than we did in 2016,
other than opinions have polarised and hardened after nobody was fooled
by a remainer Prime Minister trying to con Parliament into voting for
Brexit In Name Only which was the most unpalatable of all the possible
options. A proportion of those who voted to leave now think that remain
might be better, and a respectable number who voted remain now think
that democracy requires that they should now vote to leave.
Running a referendum is expensive and the outcome is likely to be very
similar, especially now that the Labour Party has announced it will seek
to remain and the majority of the constituencies who voted leave voted
Labour and now feel badly let down.
Jim
dennis@home
Jul 24, 2019, 1:23:03 PM7/24/19
to
On 24/07/2019 18:08, Tim Streater wrote:
> In article <XnsAA96A3D...@81.171.92.183>, Pamela
> <pamela...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 14:12 24 Jul 2019, Indy Jess John <jimw...@OMITblueyonder.co.uk>
> wouldn't in any case accept a Leave victory in a second referendum.
> Now, given that, you'll have to explain why there'd be any point in
> one.
>
The same as nige said he wouldn't accept stay then.
> In article <XnsAA96A3D...@81.171.92.183>, Pamela
> <pamela...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 14:12 24 Jul 2019, Indy Jess John <jimw...@OMITblueyonder.co.uk>
>> A second referendum in the light of what we know 3 years later should
>> clean this matter up.
>
> Not according to the LibDems and the Greens. Who have both stated they
>> clean this matter up.
>
> wouldn't in any case accept a Leave victory in a second referendum.
> Now, given that, you'll have to explain why there'd be any point in
> one.
>
The same as nige said he wouldn't accept stay then.
dennis@home
Jul 24, 2019, 1:24:08 PM7/24/19
to
On 24/07/2019 18:14, Tim Streater wrote:
> In article <XnsAA96AC5...@81.171.92.183>, Pamela
> <pamela...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> A referendum is not as expensive as the extra £17 billion expenditure
>> every year for border checks which is what Brexit will require. By
>> comparison the last referendum cost less than £130 million which is a
>> bargain by comparison.
>
> £17 Billyun to do border checks? Are ye mad? And anyway it's already
> been stated that we won't be doing any border checks at the border.
>
Where are the Eu doing them?
We don't have a say in that or hadn't you noticed?
> In article <XnsAA96AC5...@81.171.92.183>, Pamela
> <pamela...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> A referendum is not as expensive as the extra £17 billion expenditure
>> every year for border checks which is what Brexit will require. By
>> comparison the last referendum cost less than £130 million which is a
>> bargain by comparison.
>
> £17 Billyun to do border checks? Are ye mad? And anyway it's already
> been stated that we won't be doing any border checks at the border.
>
Where are the Eu doing them?
We don't have a say in that or hadn't you noticed?
The Natural Philosopher
Jul 24, 2019, 1:37:21 PM7/24/19
to
On 24/07/2019 17:41, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <R__ZE.1914909$hWc.1...@fx15.am4>,
"Caroline Patricia Lucas is a British *Green* Party politician who has
twice led the party and has been the Member of Parliament for Brighton
Pavilion since the 2010 general election."
> Remainers claiming to support
> democracy have no intention of doing so. Calls for a 'sort it' second
> referendum are merely another 'what have we got to lose spin of the
> dice' for the people that lost the first. Remainers would expect
> leavers to respect the result but quite clearly, remain has no
> intention of doing that.
> last election turned on its head by her actions.
>
> The huge lie at the moment is MPs hiding behind project fear and the
> 'no-deal catastrophe'. A completely dishonest position if there ever
> was one.
>
> It always was and always will be impossible to get a respectable deal
> from the EU without the EU really fearing we would walk away from a
> bad deal. They don't want others leaving and would wish to control
> the UK. To deny any of this is absurd.
>
Even then we won't get a good deal. It is not in the EUs interest to
give us a good one. it is in their interest to inflict as much pain and
suffering on Europoe and the UK in order to blame us for it.
> 1. To make a success of brexit it would be much better to get good
> deal with the EU at some point.
>
We wont.
> 2. To get a good deal, the EU must consider not giving us a good deal
> would be bad for them.
>
They don’t.
You are making the classic mistake we have been misled into making -
confusing a bureaucracy with a continent and its economics.
The EU is not interested in good deals for Europe, only in good deals
for the EU, which means maintaining control, cracking down on dissidents
and blaming someone else.
> 3. That is why we need the no-deal option, it would be idiotic to
> attempt to negotiate without a walk away option.
>
The only reason to negotiate is to say 'we tried' and put the blame
where it belongs, on the EU., and to do that publicly where all of
Europe can see what a monster the EU is.
> That is also precisely the reason that disingenuous remainers will do
> anything to get it off the table and why every day we are bombarded
> with ever more absurd scare stories. Talk about crashing out, cliff
> edges and no medical supplies, food shortages etc.
>
> Remain believe they can stop Brexit by preventing an acceptable deal.
> It is all about stopping brexit but they don't even have the decency
> to fight honestly, they continue to spin and hide behind "crashing
> out".
>
Of course. 'stop no deal' is 'stop brexit' for people, who have no courage.
>> And by the way, we don't know anything more now than we did in
>> 2016, other than opinions have polarised and hardened after nobody
>> was fooled by a remainer Prime Minister trying to con Parliament
>> into voting for Brexit In Name Only which was the most unpalatable
>> of all the possible options. A proportion of those who voted to
>> leave now think that remain might be better, and a respectable
>> number who voted remain now think that democracy requires that
>> they should now vote to leave.
>
> Democracy is of paramount importance for the well being and
> prosperity of nations. Having a parliament that stops us leaving and
> denies democracy would be a real catastrophe and very dangerous.
>
But remoaners don't understand that. To them the civil war, the
Commonmwealth, the Restoration and the compromises of parliamentary
democracy versus monarchy are just a story.
It's all part of the Marxist deconstructional narrative of what Britain is.
#
> We've seen in the last 2 weeks how the EU doesn't bother with
> democracy it just appoints from within and then makes the rubber
> stampers - rubber stamp.
>
Efficient, but incompetent.
>> Running a referendum is expensive and the outcome is likely to be
>> very similar, especially now that the Labour Party has announced
>> it will seek to remain and the majority of the constituencies who
>> voted leave voted Labour and now feel badly let down.
>
> Indeed,
>
> Bob.
>
--
Microsoft : the best reason to go to Linux that ever existed.
> In article <R__ZE.1914909$hWc.1...@fx15.am4>,
> Indy Jess John <jimw...@OMITblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 24/07/2019 16:06, Pamela wrote:
>
>>> A second referendum in the light of what we know 3 years later
>>> should clean this matter up.
>
>> The new leader of the Lib Dems has already announced that if there
>> is another referendum which results in a majority vote to leave,
>> she will still be campaigning with her party to remain. That
>> doesn't clear (or clean) matters up!
>
> The same with Caroline Lucas (labour).
>
>>> A second referendum in the light of what we know 3 years later
>>> should clean this matter up.
>
>> The new leader of the Lib Dems has already announced that if there
>> is another referendum which results in a majority vote to leave,
>> she will still be campaigning with her party to remain. That
>> doesn't clear (or clean) matters up!
>
"Caroline Patricia Lucas is a British *Green* Party politician who has
twice led the party and has been the Member of Parliament for Brighton
Pavilion since the 2010 general election."
> Remainers claiming to support
> democracy have no intention of doing so. Calls for a 'sort it' second
> referendum are merely another 'what have we got to lose spin of the
> dice' for the people that lost the first. Remainers would expect
> leavers to respect the result but quite clearly, remain has no
> intention of doing that.
>
>> When the 2016 referendum result was announced, the vast majority of
>> Parliamentary MPs voted to honour that decision, and that was
>> recorded in Hansard. They lied, so why should they be trusted
>> again?
>
> Indeed, completely dishonourable. Yvette Cooper's promises at the
>> When the 2016 referendum result was announced, the vast majority of
>> Parliamentary MPs voted to honour that decision, and that was
>> recorded in Hansard. They lied, so why should they be trusted
>> again?
>
> last election turned on its head by her actions.
>
> The huge lie at the moment is MPs hiding behind project fear and the
> 'no-deal catastrophe'. A completely dishonest position if there ever
> was one.
>
> It always was and always will be impossible to get a respectable deal
> from the EU without the EU really fearing we would walk away from a
> bad deal. They don't want others leaving and would wish to control
> the UK. To deny any of this is absurd.
>
Even then we won't get a good deal. It is not in the EUs interest to
give us a good one. it is in their interest to inflict as much pain and
suffering on Europoe and the UK in order to blame us for it.
> 1. To make a success of brexit it would be much better to get good
> deal with the EU at some point.
>
We wont.
> 2. To get a good deal, the EU must consider not giving us a good deal
> would be bad for them.
>
They don’t.
You are making the classic mistake we have been misled into making -
confusing a bureaucracy with a continent and its economics.
The EU is not interested in good deals for Europe, only in good deals
for the EU, which means maintaining control, cracking down on dissidents
and blaming someone else.
> 3. That is why we need the no-deal option, it would be idiotic to
> attempt to negotiate without a walk away option.
>
The only reason to negotiate is to say 'we tried' and put the blame
where it belongs, on the EU., and to do that publicly where all of
Europe can see what a monster the EU is.
> That is also precisely the reason that disingenuous remainers will do
> anything to get it off the table and why every day we are bombarded
> with ever more absurd scare stories. Talk about crashing out, cliff
> edges and no medical supplies, food shortages etc.
>
> Remain believe they can stop Brexit by preventing an acceptable deal.
> It is all about stopping brexit but they don't even have the decency
> to fight honestly, they continue to spin and hide behind "crashing
> out".
>
Of course. 'stop no deal' is 'stop brexit' for people, who have no courage.
>> And by the way, we don't know anything more now than we did in
>> 2016, other than opinions have polarised and hardened after nobody
>> was fooled by a remainer Prime Minister trying to con Parliament
>> into voting for Brexit In Name Only which was the most unpalatable
>> of all the possible options. A proportion of those who voted to
>> leave now think that remain might be better, and a respectable
>> number who voted remain now think that democracy requires that
>> they should now vote to leave.
>
> prosperity of nations. Having a parliament that stops us leaving and
> denies democracy would be a real catastrophe and very dangerous.
>
But remoaners don't understand that. To them the civil war, the
Commonmwealth, the Restoration and the compromises of parliamentary
democracy versus monarchy are just a story.
It's all part of the Marxist deconstructional narrative of what Britain is.
#
> We've seen in the last 2 weeks how the EU doesn't bother with
> democracy it just appoints from within and then makes the rubber
> stampers - rubber stamp.
>
Efficient, but incompetent.
>> Running a referendum is expensive and the outcome is likely to be
>> very similar, especially now that the Labour Party has announced
>> it will seek to remain and the majority of the constituencies who
>> voted leave voted Labour and now feel badly let down.
>
>
> Bob.
>
--
Microsoft : the best reason to go to Linux that ever existed.
Tim Lamb
Jul 24, 2019, 1:44:27 PM7/24/19
to
In message <qh9bm9$265$1...@dont-email.me>, The Natural Philosopher
<t...@invalid.invalid> writes
non democratic rule from Brussels.
cartel and you wish to punish their stupidity by dragging the UK out?
waste disposal job currently occupied by EU migrants. Did they consider
themselves deserving something better?
they have internal issues and chose to call the UK's bluff.
It is no secret they do not want us to leave.
--
Tim Lamb
<t...@invalid.invalid> writes
>On 23/07/2019 21:19, Tim Lamb wrote:
>> In message <qh7nqj$pq6$9...@dont-email.me>, Cursitor Doom
>><C...@noreply.com> writes
>>> On Tue, 23 Jul 2019 18:26:58 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>>> I doubt it. He's been around for years
>>>
>>> No point anyway, NP. The people on Usenet are notorious for never
>>> changing their minds about anything, despite the weight of evidence
>>> presented. Can you name me one person who's switched from Remoan to Leave
>>> or vice versa? I can't think of a single one.
>> Spaced Tim was an uncertain on polling day:-)
>> One could point to the lack of measurable benefits for leaving other
>>than recovering some ephemeral sovereignty, a financial contribution
>>not already rebated and the expectation of recovering already sold
>>fishing rights. Really comes down to TNPs fear of being told what to
>>do by someone whose grandfather might have worn jackboots.
>
>I am sorry to hear you say that Tim, since taht is not the case and I
>suspect you know it.
OK. I'm sorry if I have overstated your previous posts on the line of
>> In message <qh7nqj$pq6$9...@dont-email.me>, Cursitor Doom
>><C...@noreply.com> writes
>>> On Tue, 23 Jul 2019 18:26:58 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>>> I doubt it. He's been around for years
>>>
>>> No point anyway, NP. The people on Usenet are notorious for never
>>> changing their minds about anything, despite the weight of evidence
>>> presented. Can you name me one person who's switched from Remoan to Leave
>>> or vice versa? I can't think of a single one.
>> Spaced Tim was an uncertain on polling day:-)
>> One could point to the lack of measurable benefits for leaving other
>>than recovering some ephemeral sovereignty, a financial contribution
>>not already rebated and the expectation of recovering already sold
>>fishing rights. Really comes down to TNPs fear of being told what to
>>do by someone whose grandfather might have worn jackboots.
>
>I am sorry to hear you say that Tim, since taht is not the case and I
>suspect you know it.
non democratic rule from Brussels.
>
>
>It is for me all part of a larget striuglle agqainst kneejerl politics,
>the dumbing down of pthe public into dicidel aheep and teh raoe of the
>citizens by a criminal elite.
There you go..
>
>It is for me all part of a larget striuglle agqainst kneejerl politics,
>the dumbing down of pthe public into dicidel aheep and teh raoe of the
>citizens by a criminal elite.
>
>It all starte for me by asking 'why windmills?' when windmills after a
>few weeks of analyis, were not a solution to a problem I wasnt sure
>even existed.
>
>Since there was no green reason for them I followed the money trail. It
>led not just to te EU but to an international caretl of political
>slitists in cahoots with global coroprations to maximise their profits
>at the expense of the individual who was subjected to a barrage of
>propaganda mainly using faau moral arguments like 'social justice' to
>justify the rape.
So. Are you saying that the EU were taken in by some international
>It all starte for me by asking 'why windmills?' when windmills after a
>few weeks of analyis, were not a solution to a problem I wasnt sure
>even existed.
>
>Since there was no green reason for them I followed the money trail. It
>led not just to te EU but to an international caretl of political
>slitists in cahoots with global coroprations to maximise their profits
>at the expense of the individual who was subjected to a barrage of
>propaganda mainly using faau moral arguments like 'social justice' to
>justify the rape.
cartel and you wish to punish their stupidity by dragging the UK out?
>
>The only way to oppose this for the good of the citizen was to take
>arms against the EU. It wasnt so much taht this would in and of itself
>change things for the better - in fact in the short term it would
>probably be slightly worse - but it would allow of other changes to
>happen. E.g. scrapping the climate change act and halving electricity
>bills thereby.
>
>The only democratic act we were ever wllowed, was te referendum, all
>else was verboten, and the EU told us what to do.
>
>By and large the semi-educated professional middle classes were doing
>all right, and they supported the EU, but the the rest of the
>population was not.
So they voted leave rather than take the delivery driver, taxi operator,
>The only way to oppose this for the good of the citizen was to take
>arms against the EU. It wasnt so much taht this would in and of itself
>change things for the better - in fact in the short term it would
>probably be slightly worse - but it would allow of other changes to
>happen. E.g. scrapping the climate change act and halving electricity
>bills thereby.
>
>The only democratic act we were ever wllowed, was te referendum, all
>else was verboten, and the EU told us what to do.
>
>By and large the semi-educated professional middle classes were doing
>all right, and they supported the EU, but the the rest of the
>population was not.
waste disposal job currently occupied by EU migrants. Did they consider
themselves deserving something better?
>
>
>> Remaining is equally vague in terms of future benefits but 40 years
>>of stability and a GNP hugely larger than most countries our size
>>must count for something.
>>
>None of which has anything to do with the EU.
Was it 1966 we were referred to as the *sick man of Europe*?
>
>> Remaining is equally vague in terms of future benefits but 40 years
>>of stability and a GNP hugely larger than most countries our size
>>must count for something.
>>
>None of which has anything to do with the EU.
>
>You will be claiming that the sun shines because we are in the EU, and
>when it goes behind a cloud, its climate change.
>
>Really Tim, I expectd better from you.
>
>
>In the end it is all about trust, who you trust and why you trust them
>
>In so many ways I have een teh EU, and they must by their actions, know
>that they are lying, in so many ways. If they are lying, why? What is
>so bad they must conceal it?
>
>Ypou presumably think they are trustworthy.
>
>After all that has happened in the last three years?
I am not aware of anything happening in the last three years. Basically
>You will be claiming that the sun shines because we are in the EU, and
>when it goes behind a cloud, its climate change.
>
>Really Tim, I expectd better from you.
>
>
>In the end it is all about trust, who you trust and why you trust them
>
>In so many ways I have een teh EU, and they must by their actions, know
>that they are lying, in so many ways. If they are lying, why? What is
>so bad they must conceal it?
>
>Ypou presumably think they are trustworthy.
>
>After all that has happened in the last three years?
they have internal issues and chose to call the UK's bluff.
It is no secret they do not want us to leave.
>
>Wake up, smell the coffee. Like some pimp when you complian you could
>do better on your own, and bets you up to make te point, britain has
>been the EUs whore for too long.
So you want to wiggle your hips at Trump?
>Wake up, smell the coffee. Like some pimp when you complian you could
>do better on your own, and bets you up to make te point, britain has
>been the EUs whore for too long.
--
Tim Lamb
The Natural Philosopher
Jul 24, 2019, 1:52:17 PM7/24/19
to
marketing and post cold war propaganda
>>
>> It all starte for me by asking 'why windmills?' when windmills after a
>> few weeks of analyis, were not a solution to a problem I wasnt sure
>> even existed.
>>
>> Since there was no green reason for them I followed the money trail.
>> It led not just to te EU but to an international caretl of political
>> slitists in cahoots with global coroprations to maximise their profits
>> at the expense of the individual who was subjected to a barrage of
>> propaganda mainly using faau moral arguments like 'social justice' to
>> justify the rape.
> So. Are you saying that the EU were taken in by some international
> cartel and you wish to punish their stupidity by dragging the UK out?
escape the consequences of their rapine.
>>
>> The only way to oppose this for the good of the citizen was to take
>> arms against the EU. It wasnt so much taht this would in and of itself
>> change things for the better - in fact in the short term it would
>> probably be slightly worse - but it would allow of other changes to
>> happen. E.g. scrapping the climate change act and halving electricity
>> bills thereby.
>>
>> The only democratic act we were ever wllowed, was te referendum, all
>> else was verboten, and the EU told us what to do.
>>
>> By and large the semi-educated professional middle classes were doing
>> all right, and they supported the EU, but the the rest of the
>> population was not.
> So they voted leave rather than take the delivery driver, taxi operator,
> waste disposal job currently occupied by EU migrants.
took the delivery driver, taxi operator, waste disposal job currently
occupied by EU migrants and gave them to UK people was in fact taken by
someone they could vote out of office,
.
> Did they consider
> themselves deserving something better?
>>
>>
>>> Remaining is equally vague in terms of future benefits but 40 years
>>> of stability and a GNP hugely larger than most countries our size
>>> must count for something.
>>>
>> None of which has anything to do with the EU.
>
> Was it 1966 we were referred to as the *sick man of Europe*?
>>
>> You will be claiming that the sun shines because we are in the EU, and
>> when it goes behind a cloud, its climate change.
>>
>> Really Tim, I expectd better from you.
>>
>>
>> In the end it is all about trust, who you trust and why you trust them
>>
>> In so many ways I have een teh EU, and they must by their actions,
>> know that they are lying, in so many ways. If they are lying, why?
>> What is so bad they must conceal it?
>>
>> Ypou presumably think they are trustworthy.
>>
>> After all that has happened in the last three years?
>
> I am not aware of anything happening in the last three years. Basically
> they have internal issues and chose to call the UK's bluff.
> It is no secret they do not want us to leave.
>>
>> Wake up, smell the coffee. Like some pimp when you complian you could
>> do better on your own, and bets you up to make te point, britain has
>> been the EUs whore for too long.
>
> So you want to wiggle your hips at Trump?
>
Bur realistically why not go self employed and cut out tje protection
racketeers..
--
“It is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of
making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people
who pay no price for being wrong.”
Thomas Sowell
dennis@home
Jul 24, 2019, 2:43:48 PM7/24/19
to
On 24/07/2019 18:40, Tim Streater wrote:
> The EU has also stated it won't, whatever the circs, be putting in a
> hard border.
>
> Of course, they could be lying and at some point force the Irish to put
> one there - in contravention of the GF Agreement.
>
That would be in a no deal situation?
Its brexiteers lying as usual.
> hard border.
>
> Of course, they could be lying and at some point force the Irish to put
> one there - in contravention of the GF Agreement.
>
That would be in a no deal situation?
Its brexiteers lying as usual.
dennis@home
Jul 24, 2019, 2:44:52 PM7/24/19
to
On 24/07/2019 18:39, Tim Streater wrote:
> This is the same Nige you believe to be a powerless non-entity, then,
> is it?
>
It doesn't matter what I think its the fools that vote for him that matter.
> is it?
>
It doesn't matter what I think its the fools that vote for him that matter.
The Natural Philosopher
Jul 24, 2019, 5:58:54 PM7/24/19
to
On 24/07/2019 21:08, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <qha50g$l9p$1...@dont-email.me>,
> than most labour mps.
> positive but I'm sure there will not be an acceptable deal until some
> time after we have left.
>
> At the point where there is little advantage to them to keep being
> uncooperative and they're losing trade and profit and jobs, then they
> will eventually negotiate. but it will be a while.
Please. The EU will not lose jobs or trade or profit or suffer. Europe
will.
They are very different things. We did not vote to 'leave Europe' - that
is a monstrous lie perpetrated by Remain, We voted to leave the EU.
We could negotiate with European countries with democratically elected
leaders, we can't negotiate with the EU
>
> But honestly, I don't care, I'll take the drop in living standard to
> get us out.
>
> Remainer friends of mine are having a complete meltdown today. Going
> to stop voting tory and go lib dem. Going to vote for a party that is
> neither liberal or democratic.
Of course. They have bought the propaganda hook line and sinker.
>
> I try not to engage remain friends about brexit but I can't resist
> asking how they would swap parties and remove the government if/when
> we are completely ruled by the EU.
>
> They don't seem to notice how not even slightly democratic the EU is
> but love being able to swap parties cos they don't like xyz.....
>
> Just mad.
>
> I see Darren Grimes posted to say the new cabinet was his fantasy
> cabinet and then upgraded to say it was pornography, had to smile.
> That lad deserves some fun after what remain put him through.
>
Yup!
>
> Bob.
>
--
"A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight
and understanding".
Marshall McLuhan
> In article <qha50g$l9p$1...@dont-email.me>,
> The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 24/07/2019 17:41, Bob Latham wrote:
>
>>> The same with Caroline Lucas (labour).
>
>> "Caroline Patricia Lucas is a British *Green* Party politician who
>> has twice led the party and has been the Member of Parliament for
>> Brighton Pavilion since the 2010 general election."
>
> Oh right sorry. That explains why I thought she was even more nuts
>> On 24/07/2019 17:41, Bob Latham wrote:
>
>>> The same with Caroline Lucas (labour).
>
>> "Caroline Patricia Lucas is a British *Green* Party politician who
>> has twice led the party and has been the Member of Parliament for
>> Brighton Pavilion since the 2010 general election."
>
> than most labour mps.
>
>
>> Even then we won't get a good deal. It is not in the EUs interest
>> to give us a good one. it is in their interest to inflict as much
>> pain and suffering on Europoe and the UK in order to blame us for
>> it.
>
> [Snip]
>
>> Even then we won't get a good deal. It is not in the EUs interest
>> to give us a good one. it is in their interest to inflict as much
>> pain and suffering on Europoe and the UK in order to blame us for
>> it.
>
>
>> The only reason to negotiate is to say 'we tried' and put the
>> blame where it belongs, on the EU., and to do that publicly where
>> all of Europe can see what a monster the EU is.
>
> Actually I agree. I didn't want to say it as I was hoping to keep
>> The only reason to negotiate is to say 'we tried' and put the
>> blame where it belongs, on the EU., and to do that publicly where
>> all of Europe can see what a monster the EU is.
>
> positive but I'm sure there will not be an acceptable deal until some
> time after we have left.
>
> At the point where there is little advantage to them to keep being
> uncooperative and they're losing trade and profit and jobs, then they
> will eventually negotiate. but it will be a while.
Please. The EU will not lose jobs or trade or profit or suffer. Europe
will.
They are very different things. We did not vote to 'leave Europe' - that
is a monstrous lie perpetrated by Remain, We voted to leave the EU.
We could negotiate with European countries with democratically elected
leaders, we can't negotiate with the EU
>
> But honestly, I don't care, I'll take the drop in living standard to
> get us out.
>
> Remainer friends of mine are having a complete meltdown today. Going
> to stop voting tory and go lib dem. Going to vote for a party that is
> neither liberal or democratic.
Of course. They have bought the propaganda hook line and sinker.
>
> I try not to engage remain friends about brexit but I can't resist
> asking how they would swap parties and remove the government if/when
> we are completely ruled by the EU.
>
> They don't seem to notice how not even slightly democratic the EU is
> but love being able to swap parties cos they don't like xyz.....
>
> Just mad.
>
> I see Darren Grimes posted to say the new cabinet was his fantasy
> cabinet and then upgraded to say it was pornography, had to smile.
> That lad deserves some fun after what remain put him through.
>
Yup!
>
> Bob.
>
--
"A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight
and understanding".
Marshall McLuhan
The Natural Philosopher
Jul 24, 2019, 6:01:16 PM7/24/19
to
On 24/07/2019 22:21, Tim Streater wrote:
> In article <57d8c2...@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
> pamela thinks.
>
> Meanwhile Boris puts a stonking cabinet together and not a moment too
> soon. What he is in effect saying is fuck to all remainers who have
> held us up so far. The gloves are off now, as we see from the
> green/libdems who have finally come clean about what their agenda is.
>
> Fuck to all of them.
>
Yeah. Democracy is one man one vote, and Boris is that man...today. And
we will judge him by results
And then use our votes to kick the fucker out if he fucks up.
--
“when things get difficult you just have to lie”
― Jean Claud Jüncker
> In article <57d8c2...@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
> <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I see Darren Grimes posted to say the new cabinet was his fantasy
>> cabinet and then upgraded to say it was pornography, had to smile.
>> That lad deserves some fun after what remain put him through.
>
> Quite. That lad will go far and has done nothing wrong, never mind what
>
>> I see Darren Grimes posted to say the new cabinet was his fantasy
>> cabinet and then upgraded to say it was pornography, had to smile.
>> That lad deserves some fun after what remain put him through.
>
> pamela thinks.
>
> Meanwhile Boris puts a stonking cabinet together and not a moment too
> soon. What he is in effect saying is fuck to all remainers who have
> held us up so far. The gloves are off now, as we see from the
> green/libdems who have finally come clean about what their agenda is.
>
> Fuck to all of them.
>
Yeah. Democracy is one man one vote, and Boris is that man...today. And
we will judge him by results
And then use our votes to kick the fucker out if he fucks up.
--
“when things get difficult you just have to lie”
― Jean Claud Jüncker
Norman Wells
Jul 24, 2019, 6:11:36 PM7/24/19
to
surely should have said is:
And then fucking use our fucking votes to fucking kick the fucking
fucker out if he fucking fucks up.
More would appear crass, but too few is just unforgiveable and reveals
your pretensions to upward social mobility.
The Natural Philosopher
Jul 24, 2019, 6:12:55 PM7/24/19
to
On 24/07/2019 23:11, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 24/07/2019 23:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 24/07/2019 22:21, Tim Streater wrote:
>
>>> Meanwhile Boris puts a stonking cabinet together and not a moment too
>>> soon. What he is in effect saying is fuck to all remainers who have
>>> held us up so far. The gloves are off now, as we see from the
>>> green/libdems who have finally come clean about what their agenda is.
>>>
>>> Fuck to all of them.
>>>
>> Yeah. Democracy is one man one vote, and Boris is that man...today.
>> And we will judge him by results
>>
>> And then use our votes to kick the fucker out if he fucks up.
>
> You seem to have missed at least five opportunities there. What you
> surely should have said is:
>
> And then fucking use our fucking votes to fucking kick the fucking
> fucker out if he fucking fucks up.
I am not that pretentious.
> On 24/07/2019 23:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 24/07/2019 22:21, Tim Streater wrote:
>
>>> Meanwhile Boris puts a stonking cabinet together and not a moment too
>>> soon. What he is in effect saying is fuck to all remainers who have
>>> held us up so far. The gloves are off now, as we see from the
>>> green/libdems who have finally come clean about what their agenda is.
>>>
>>> Fuck to all of them.
>>>
>> Yeah. Democracy is one man one vote, and Boris is that man...today.
>> And we will judge him by results
>>
>> And then use our votes to kick the fucker out if he fucks up.
>
> You seem to have missed at least five opportunities there. What you
> surely should have said is:
>
> And then fucking use our fucking votes to fucking kick the fucking
> fucker out if he fucking fucks up.
>
> More would appear crass, but too few is just unforgiveable and reveals
> your pretensions to upward social mobility.
Upwards social mobility?
> More would appear crass, but too few is just unforgiveable and reveals
> your pretensions to upward social mobility.
What a contrary cunt you are to be sure!
--
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow witted
man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest
thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly
persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid
before him."
- Leo Tolstoy
Norman Wells
Jul 24, 2019, 6:23:41 PM7/24/19
to
On 24/07/2019 23:12, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 24/07/2019 23:11, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 24/07/2019 23:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 24/07/2019 22:21, Tim Streater wrote:
>>
>>>> Meanwhile Boris puts a stonking cabinet together and not a moment too
>>>> soon. What he is in effect saying is fuck to all remainers who have
>>>> held us up so far. The gloves are off now, as we see from the
>>>> green/libdems who have finally come clean about what their agenda is.
>>>>
>>>> Fuck to all of them.
>>>>
>>> Yeah. Democracy is one man one vote, and Boris is that man...today.
>>> And we will judge him by results
>>>
>>> And then use our votes to kick the fucker out if he fucks up.
>>
>> You seem to have missed at least five opportunities there. What you
>> surely should have said is:
>>
>> And then fucking use our fucking votes to fucking kick the fucking
>> fucker out if he fucking fucks up.
>
> I am not that pretentious.
>>
>> More would appear crass, but too few is just unforgiveable and reveals
>> your pretensions to upward social mobility.
>
> Upwards social mobility?
Your language is that of the gutter, so the only way is up.
> On 24/07/2019 23:11, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 24/07/2019 23:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 24/07/2019 22:21, Tim Streater wrote:
>>
>>>> Meanwhile Boris puts a stonking cabinet together and not a moment too
>>>> soon. What he is in effect saying is fuck to all remainers who have
>>>> held us up so far. The gloves are off now, as we see from the
>>>> green/libdems who have finally come clean about what their agenda is.
>>>>
>>>> Fuck to all of them.
>>>>
>>> Yeah. Democracy is one man one vote, and Boris is that man...today.
>>> And we will judge him by results
>>>
>>> And then use our votes to kick the fucker out if he fucks up.
>>
>> You seem to have missed at least five opportunities there. What you
>> surely should have said is:
>>
>> And then fucking use our fucking votes to fucking kick the fucking
>> fucker out if he fucking fucks up.
>
> I am not that pretentious.
>>
>> More would appear crass, but too few is just unforgiveable and reveals
>> your pretensions to upward social mobility.
>
> Upwards social mobility?
> What a contrary cunt you are to be sure!
me
Jul 24, 2019, 7:31:28 PM7/24/19
to
In message <GOYZE.1788881$Ud5.1...@fx12.am4>, Indy Jess John
<jimw...@OMITblueyonder.co.uk> writes:
[]
looked for any, either.)
>was worried that without that referendum, too many Tory votes would be
>lost to UKIP.
>
>That is why Brexit has to happen. The public will never ever be given
>another chance to leave the EU. Only after we have left will the EU
It was noticeable that just after our referendum result, the bureaucracy
of the EC did make moves to increase the difficulty for other countries
to leave. Such activity died down subsequently, and I don't know if it
actually reached any implementation.
>talk sensibly to us. If we stay having invoked Article 50, we will be
>a pariah state for many years; we will truly regret staying in.
I can't help thinking there is at least some truth in that. If we were
to stay in, our relations would be considerably more strained with our
fellow members, due to harsh things that have been said in the past
three years (on both sides - of the channel, I mean). If we leave, the
same applies: basically it'll take a long time for things to cool,
whatever we do.
what the percentage was, only the result. In the same way, from a
greater distance, most Iranians currently probably think of us as
Americans, even though our views on Iran are considerably different to
the USA's.
>
>Jim
John
--
me
<jimw...@OMITblueyonder.co.uk> writes:
[]
>It is also worth noting that David Cameron only offered a public
>referendum because he was certain the result would be to remain, and he
That is often said, but I've not seen any proof. (Mind you, I haven't
>referendum because he was certain the result would be to remain, and he
looked for any, either.)
>was worried that without that referendum, too many Tory votes would be
>lost to UKIP.
>
>That is why Brexit has to happen. The public will never ever be given
>another chance to leave the EU. Only after we have left will the EU
of the EC did make moves to increase the difficulty for other countries
to leave. Such activity died down subsequently, and I don't know if it
actually reached any implementation.
>talk sensibly to us. If we stay having invoked Article 50, we will be
>a pariah state for many years; we will truly regret staying in.
to stay in, our relations would be considerably more strained with our
fellow members, due to harsh things that have been said in the past
three years (on both sides - of the channel, I mean). If we leave, the
same applies: basically it'll take a long time for things to cool,
whatever we do.
>
>Regardless of whether an individual voted leave or remain in the
>referendum, that is the brush the entire country is now tarred with.
I think that's correct; most EU citizens probably aren't that bothered
>Regardless of whether an individual voted leave or remain in the
>referendum, that is the brush the entire country is now tarred with.
what the percentage was, only the result. In the same way, from a
greater distance, most Iranians currently probably think of us as
Americans, even though our views on Iran are considerably different to
the USA's.
>
>Jim
John
--
me
me
Jul 24, 2019, 7:43:28 PM7/24/19
to
In message <57d8c4...@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> writes:
[]
>Yes this is very typical remain arguments.
[]
>To remind you the bus said...
>
>"We send the EU £350 million a week let's fund the NHS instead.
>Vote Leave Let's take back control."
It was, in the interpretation a lot of people put on it, a BIG lie. (But
see below.)
>
>Oh yes a massive lie that. Do you believe it would have made any
>difference had the figure said £100M /week? I don't, I think both are
>unimaginably large sums of money. It also did not promise to spend
That's one of two points that tend to get overlooked:
1. Had it been closer to the net value (about 100m is it?), I doubt that
would have made much difference to those who voted leave for reasons of
just the money. (Had it even been half the true value, I still don't
think it'd have made much difference. 350, 100, and 50m are all figures
too big for most people - including me - to grasp easily.)
2. That wasn't the only reason many voted leave.
>350m /week on the NHS which is a common claim.
It certainly strongly implied it though!
>
>Now can you list these other lies that leave told and then we go over
>the utter trash we've had from remain for over 3 years day after day.
Both sides have been extremely dishonourable.
[]
>Judge says our bus was OK.
I'm sure only on some very narrow interpretation, such as it showed a
true figure but for the _gross_ contribution, not _net_. (But see above
for whether it would have actually made much difference.)
[]
--
me
<b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> writes:
[]
>Yes this is very typical remain arguments.
[]
>To remind you the bus said...
>
>"We send the EU £350 million a week let's fund the NHS instead.
>Vote Leave Let's take back control."
It was, in the interpretation a lot of people put on it, a BIG lie. (But
see below.)
>
>Oh yes a massive lie that. Do you believe it would have made any
>difference had the figure said £100M /week? I don't, I think both are
>unimaginably large sums of money. It also did not promise to spend
That's one of two points that tend to get overlooked:
1. Had it been closer to the net value (about 100m is it?), I doubt that
would have made much difference to those who voted leave for reasons of
just the money. (Had it even been half the true value, I still don't
think it'd have made much difference. 350, 100, and 50m are all figures
too big for most people - including me - to grasp easily.)
2. That wasn't the only reason many voted leave.
>350m /week on the NHS which is a common claim.
It certainly strongly implied it though!
>
>Now can you list these other lies that leave told and then we go over
>the utter trash we've had from remain for over 3 years day after day.
Both sides have been extremely dishonourable.
[]
>Judge says our bus was OK.
I'm sure only on some very narrow interpretation, such as it showed a
true figure but for the _gross_ contribution, not _net_. (But see above
for whether it would have actually made much difference.)
[]
--
me
me
Jul 24, 2019, 7:49:33 PM7/24/19
to
In message <57d8c2...@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> writes:
[]
we'll _eventually_ be better off. I'm the same (I hope), but I _do_
understand the viewpoint of those who, say, are just keeping their heads
above water, possibly with young families and mortgage to support, who
may or may not think we'd be better off in the long run, but _don't_
think they could survive the intervening period. They have to protect
their families.
fairly quickly; you only have to look at America - I don't think many
would claim that the Democrats are monarchists, or that the Republicans
are undemocratic.
[]
--
me
<b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> writes:
[]
>But honestly, I don't care, I'll take the drop in living standard to
>get us out.
I presume you think you can weather the period of hardship, and that
>get us out.
we'll _eventually_ be better off. I'm the same (I hope), but I _do_
understand the viewpoint of those who, say, are just keeping their heads
above water, possibly with young families and mortgage to support, who
may or may not think we'd be better off in the long run, but _don't_
think they could survive the intervening period. They have to protect
their families.
>
>Remainer friends of mine are having a complete meltdown today. Going
>to stop voting tory and go lib dem. Going to vote for a party that is
>neither liberal or democratic.
A cheap dig - the names of political parties lose their original meaning
>Remainer friends of mine are having a complete meltdown today. Going
>to stop voting tory and go lib dem. Going to vote for a party that is
>neither liberal or democratic.
fairly quickly; you only have to look at America - I don't think many
would claim that the Democrats are monarchists, or that the Republicans
are undemocratic.
[]
--
me
Swer
Jul 24, 2019, 8:48:32 PM7/24/19
to
"Pamela" <pamela...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:XnsAA96794...@81.171.92.183...
> On 11:25 24 Jul 2019, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> On 23/07/2019 21:19, Tim Lamb wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Spaced Tim was an uncertain on polling day:-)
>>>
>>> One could point to the lack of measurable benefits for leaving other
>>> than recovering some ephemeral sovereignty, a financial contribution
>>> not already rebated and the expectation of recovering already sold
>>> fishing rights. Really comes down to TNPs fear of being told what to do
>>> by someone whose grandfather might have worn jackboots.
>>
>> I am sorry to hear you say that Tim, since taht is not the case and I
>> suspect you know it.
>>
>> It is for me all part of a larget striuglle agqainst kneejerl politics,
>> the dumbing down of pthe public into dicidel aheep and teh raoe of the
>> citizens by a criminal elite.
>>
>> It all starte for me by asking 'why windmills?' when windmills after a
>> few weeks of analyis, were not a solution to a problem I wasnt sure even
>> existed.
>>
>> Since there was no green reason for them I followed the money trail. It
>> led not just to te EU but to an international caretl of political
>> slitists in cahoots with global coroprations to maximise their profits
>> at the expense of the individual who was subjected to a barrage of
>> propaganda mainly using faau moral arguments like 'social justice' to
>> justify the rape.
>
> Read that again! You sound like some student commie revolutionist.
>
>> On 23/07/2019 21:19, Tim Lamb wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Spaced Tim was an uncertain on polling day:-)
>>>
>>> One could point to the lack of measurable benefits for leaving other
>>> than recovering some ephemeral sovereignty, a financial contribution
>>> not already rebated and the expectation of recovering already sold
>>> fishing rights. Really comes down to TNPs fear of being told what to do
>>> by someone whose grandfather might have worn jackboots.
>>
>> I am sorry to hear you say that Tim, since taht is not the case and I
>> suspect you know it.
>>
>> It is for me all part of a larget striuglle agqainst kneejerl politics,
>> the dumbing down of pthe public into dicidel aheep and teh raoe of the
>> citizens by a criminal elite.
>>
>> It all starte for me by asking 'why windmills?' when windmills after a
>> few weeks of analyis, were not a solution to a problem I wasnt sure even
>> existed.
>>
>> Since there was no green reason for them I followed the money trail. It
>> led not just to te EU but to an international caretl of political
>> slitists in cahoots with global coroprations to maximise their profits
>> at the expense of the individual who was subjected to a barrage of
>> propaganda mainly using faau moral arguments like 'social justice' to
>> justify the rape.
>
> Paranoid too.
>
>> The only way to oppose this for the good of the citizen was to take arms
>> against the EU.
>
> "Take arms against the EU" to fight "global corporations"? Yes, sure.
>> The only way to oppose this for the good of the citizen was to take arms
>> against the EU.
>
> That's a good idea. You want to wreck our economy for your personal
> political objectives of bringing down global corporations.
>
>
>> It wasnt so much taht this would in and of itself change things for the
>> better - in fact in the short term it would probably be slightly worse -
>> but it would allow of other changes to happen. E.g. scrapping the
>> climate change act and halving electricity bills thereby.
>>
>> The only democratic act we were ever wllowed, was te referendum, all
>> else was verboten, and the EU told us what to do.
>
>
>> It wasnt so much taht this would in and of itself change things for the
>> better - in fact in the short term it would probably be slightly worse -
>> but it would allow of other changes to happen. E.g. scrapping the
>> climate change act and halving electricity bills thereby.
>>
>> The only democratic act we were ever wllowed, was te referendum, all
>> else was verboten, and the EU told us what to do.
>
> Oh my. So our general elections were being thwarted by the wicked EU and
> we never really had any democracy at all?
>
> we never really had any democracy at all?
>
>> By and large the semi-educated professional middle classes were doing
>> all right, and they supported the EU, but the the rest of the population
>> was not.
>>
>>> Remaining is equally vague in terms of future benefits but 40 years of
>>> stability and a GNP hugely larger than most countries our size must
>>> count for something.
>>
>> None of which has anything to do with the EU. You will be claiming that
>> the sun shines because we are in the EU, and when it goes behind a
>> cloud, its climate change. Really Tim, I expectd better from you.
>>
>> In the end it is all about trust, who you trust and why you trust them.
>> all right, and they supported the EU, but the the rest of the population
>> was not.
>>
>>> Remaining is equally vague in terms of future benefits but 40 years of
>>> stability and a GNP hugely larger than most countries our size must
>>> count for something.
>>
>> None of which has anything to do with the EU. You will be claiming that
>> the sun shines because we are in the EU, and when it goes behind a
>> cloud, its climate change. Really Tim, I expectd better from you.
>>
>> In so many ways I have een teh EU, and they must by their actions, know
>> that they are lying, in so many ways. If they are lying, why? What is so
>> bad they must conceal it?
>>
>> Ypou presumably think they are trustworthy.
>>
>> After all that has happened in the last three years?
> The last 3 years have shown the glaring incompetence
>> that they are lying, in so many ways. If they are lying, why? What is so
>> bad they must conceal it?
>>
>> Ypou presumably think they are trustworthy.
>>
>> After all that has happened in the last three years?
> of Brexiteers to deliver their pledges.
Bet Boris does.
> Almost none of the benefits they promised are going to materialise.
That’s a lie too with being able to do whatever the govt
chooses to do regardless of what the EU thinks about that.
> Brexit adds no value,
Another lie.
> so it's no surprise.
Swer
Jul 24, 2019, 9:27:24 PM7/24/19
to
news:XnsAA96A3D...@81.171.92.183...
a no deal brexit which they clearly don’t want.
> Alternatively a general election fought mainly on Brexit should do it.
Not going to happen given the polls.
> A second referendum in the light of what we
> know 3 years later should clean this matter up.
Its still not known what the EU will cave on to avoid
> know 3 years later should clean this matter up.
a no deal brexit which they clearly don’t want.
> Alternatively a general election fought mainly on Brexit should do it.
Not going to happen given the polls.
Rod Speed
Jul 24, 2019, 10:15:24 PM7/24/19
to
"dennis@home" <den...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xu0_E.46970$QQ7....@fx18.iad...
Swer
Jul 24, 2019, 10:56:38 PM7/24/19
to
"Tim Streater" <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote in message
news:240720191846144145%timst...@greenbee.net...
> In article <qha50g$l9p$1...@dont-email.me>, The Natural Philosopher
> <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On 24/07/2019 17:41, Bob Latham wrote:
>
>>> Democracy is of paramount importance for the well being and
>>> prosperity of nations. Having a parliament that stops us leaving and
>>> denies democracy would be a real catastrophe and very dangerous.
>>
>>But remoaners don't understand that. To them the civil war, the
>>Commonmwealth, the Restoration and the compromises of parliamentary
>>democracy versus monarchy are just a story.
>>
>>It's all part of the Marxist deconstructional narrative of what Britain
>>is.
>
> It's because the EU is an oligarchy and it seems that Remainers like
>
>>> Democracy is of paramount importance for the well being and
>>> prosperity of nations. Having a parliament that stops us leaving and
>>> denies democracy would be a real catastrophe and very dangerous.
>>
>>But remoaners don't understand that. To them the civil war, the
>>Commonmwealth, the Restoration and the compromises of parliamentary
>>democracy versus monarchy are just a story.
>>
>>It's all part of the Marxist deconstructional narrative of what Britain
>>is.
>
> that. They are happy to be infantilised and so don't mind being told
> what to do. I can find no other explanation for their childish
> attachment to Nana's apron strings.
The other obvious explanation is that they have no
interest in politics while ever things work out fine.
> We Leavers, OTOH, have noted that the EU is an oligarchy, a form of
> government this country has spent 350 years evolving *away* from.
Swer
Jul 24, 2019, 11:00:56 PM7/24/19
to
news:XnsAA96C1E...@81.171.92.183...
>>>bargain by comparison.
>>
>> £17 Billyun to do border checks? Are ye mad? And anyway it's already
> billion extra. See here:
>
> "Brexit: How did HMRC get to a £20bn customs cost?"
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44238226
Just more Project Fear lies.
> On 18:14 24 Jul 2019, Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <XnsAA96AC5...@81.171.92.183>, Pamela
>> <pamela...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>A referendum is not as expensive as the extra £17 billion expenditure
>
>> In article <XnsAA96AC5...@81.171.92.183>, Pamela
>> <pamela...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>every year for border checks which is what Brexit will require. By
>>>comparison the last referendum cost less than £130 million which is a
>>>bargain by comparison.
>>
>> £17 Billyun to do border checks? Are ye mad? And anyway it's already
>> been stated that we won't be doing any border checks at the border.
>
> I don't mean only the NI border. The estimate was between £17 and £20
>
> billion extra. See here:
>
> "Brexit: How did HMRC get to a £20bn customs cost?"
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44238226
Just more Project Fear lies.
The Natural Philosopher
Jul 25, 2019, 2:50:43 AM7/25/19
to
On 25/07/2019 02:27, Swer wrote:
> Its still not known what the EU will cave on to avoid
> a no deal brexit which they clearly don’t want.
They want to give Britain a better deal than no deal even less.
> Its still not known what the EU will cave on to avoid
> a no deal brexit which they clearly don’t want.
Brexit MUST fail and be SEEN to fail or everyone will leave the EU, and
there will just be a bunch of cunts in suits bumbling around with no one
to bully.
You don't get to be top protection racket in Europe without smashing a
few economies.
Greece, Italy and nearly Ireland come to mind.
Does the EU give a fuck? Nope... "We are your friendly nice godfather,
now give us £39bn and sign the profits to us forever'
--
“Ideas are inherently conservative. They yield not to the attack of
other ideas but to the massive onslaught of circumstance"
- John K Galbraith
Peeler
Jul 25, 2019, 2:52:13 AM7/25/19
to
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 12:07:24 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:
>>> £17 Billyun to do border checks? Are ye mad? And anyway it's already
>>> been stated that we won't be doing any border checks at the border.
>>>
>>
>> Where are the Eu doing them?
>
> Irrelevant to the bare faced lie that they will cost the UK £17b every year.
PROVE it, you blithering Australian idiot!
--
MrTu...@down.the.farm about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID: <ps10v9$uo2$1...@gioia.aioe.org>
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:
>>> £17 Billyun to do border checks? Are ye mad? And anyway it's already
>>> been stated that we won't be doing any border checks at the border.
>>>
>>
>> Where are the Eu doing them?
>
> Irrelevant to the bare faced lie that they will cost the UK £17b every year.
--
MrTu...@down.the.farm about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID: <ps10v9$uo2$1...@gioia.aioe.org>
Peeler
Jul 25, 2019, 2:53:05 AM7/25/19
to
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 13:00:46 +1000, Swer, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:
>> I don't mean only the NI border. The estimate was between £17 and £20
>> billion extra. See here:
>>
>> "Brexit: How did HMRC get to a £20bn customs cost?"
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44238226
>
> Just more Project Fear lies.
PROVE it, you clinically insane senile Australian asshole troll!
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:
>> I don't mean only the NI border. The estimate was between £17 and £20
>> billion extra. See here:
>>
>> "Brexit: How did HMRC get to a £20bn customs cost?"
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44238226
>
> Just more Project Fear lies.
--
Norman Wells addressing senile Rot:
"Ah, the voice of scum speaks."
MID: <g4t0jt...@mid.individual.net>
Peeler
Jul 25, 2019, 2:57:24 AM7/25/19
to
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 12:56:27 +1000, Swer, better known as cantankerous
troubled assholes like most Brexiters are (including an Australian Brexiter
wannabe like you), senile Australian idiot!
--
The Natural Philosopher about senile Rot:
"Rod speed is not a Brexiteer. He is an Australian troll and arsehole."
Message-ID: <pu07vj$s5$2...@dont-email.me>
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:
>> It's because the EU is an oligarchy and it seems that Remainers like
>> that. They are happy to be infantilised and so don't mind being told
>> what to do. I can find no other explanation for their childish
>> attachment to Nana's apron strings.
>
> The other obvious explanation is that they have no
> interest in politics while ever things work out fine.
And even better explanation is that they are NOT narrow-minded, mentally
>> that. They are happy to be infantilised and so don't mind being told
>> what to do. I can find no other explanation for their childish
>> attachment to Nana's apron strings.
>
> The other obvious explanation is that they have no
> interest in politics while ever things work out fine.
troubled assholes like most Brexiters are (including an Australian Brexiter
wannabe like you), senile Australian idiot!
--
The Natural Philosopher about senile Rot:
"Rod speed is not a Brexiteer. He is an Australian troll and arsehole."
Message-ID: <pu07vj$s5$2...@dont-email.me>
Peeler
Jul 25, 2019, 2:59:02 AM7/25/19
to
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 11:27:14 +1000, Swer, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:
>> A second referendum in the light of what we
>> know 3 years later should clean this matter up.
>
> Its still not known what the EU will cave on to avoid
> a no deal brexit which they clearly don’t want.
It IS known that you are a trolling senile asshole, senile Rodent!
>> know 3 years later should clean this matter up.
>
> Its still not known what the EU will cave on to avoid
> a no deal brexit which they clearly don’t want.
Peeler
Jul 25, 2019, 3:02:02 AM7/25/19
to
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 10:40:38 +1000, Swer, better known as cantankerous
>> Almost none of the benefits they promised are going to materialise.
>
> That’s a lie too with being able to do whatever the govt
> chooses to do regardless of what the EU thinks about that.
ONLY in your senile thick Australian head, senile Rodent!
>> Brexit adds no value,
>
> Another lie.
ONLY in your thick Australian head, senile troll!
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:
>> The last 3 years have shown the glaring incompetence
>> of Brexiteers to deliver their pledges.
>
> Bet Boris does.
ONLY in your senile head, senile Rodent!
>> of Brexiteers to deliver their pledges.
>
> Bet Boris does.
>> Almost none of the benefits they promised are going to materialise.
>
> That’s a lie too with being able to do whatever the govt
> chooses to do regardless of what the EU thinks about that.
>> Brexit adds no value,
>
> Another lie.
The Natural Philosopher
Jul 25, 2019, 3:20:00 AM7/25/19
to
On 25/07/2019 03:56, Swer wrote:
>
>
> "Tim Streater" <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote in message
> news:240720191846144145%timst...@greenbee.net...
>> In article <qha50g$l9p$1...@dont-email.me>, The Natural Philosopher
>> <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 24/07/2019 17:41, Bob Latham wrote:
>>
>>>> Democracy is of paramount importance for the well being and
>>>> prosperity of nations. Having a parliament that stops us leaving and
>>>> denies democracy would be a real catastrophe and very dangerous.
>>>
>>> But remoaners don't understand that. To them the civil war, the
>>> Commonmwealth, the Restoration and the compromises of parliamentary
>>> democracy versus monarchy are just a story.
>>>
>>> It's all part of the Marxist deconstructional narrative of what
>>> Britain is.
>>
>> It's because the EU is an oligarchy and it seems that Remainers like
>> that. They are happy to be infantilised and so don't mind being told
>> what to do. I can find no other explanation for their childish
>> attachment to Nana's apron strings.
>
> The other obvious explanation is that they have no
> interest in politics while ever things work out fine.
>
Well why not the STFU and let Brexit happen?
>
>
> "Tim Streater" <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote in message
> news:240720191846144145%timst...@greenbee.net...
>> In article <qha50g$l9p$1...@dont-email.me>, The Natural Philosopher
>> <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 24/07/2019 17:41, Bob Latham wrote:
>>
>>>> Democracy is of paramount importance for the well being and
>>>> prosperity of nations. Having a parliament that stops us leaving and
>>>> denies democracy would be a real catastrophe and very dangerous.
>>>
>>> But remoaners don't understand that. To them the civil war, the
>>> Commonmwealth, the Restoration and the compromises of parliamentary
>>> democracy versus monarchy are just a story.
>>>
>>> It's all part of the Marxist deconstructional narrative of what
>>> Britain is.
>>
>> It's because the EU is an oligarchy and it seems that Remainers like
>> that. They are happy to be infantilised and so don't mind being told
>> what to do. I can find no other explanation for their childish
>> attachment to Nana's apron strings.
>
> The other obvious explanation is that they have no
> interest in politics while ever things work out fine.
>
They wont though which refutes that hypothesis.
They have been thorooghly politicsed in a desperate attempt to stop
Brexit. That may backfire as the last thing the current mob want is for
people to actually start thinking about politics.
>> We Leavers, OTOH, have noted that the EU is an oligarchy, a form of
>> government this country has spent 350 years evolving *away* from.
>
counter the natural tendency of any government to become an oligarchy -
viz 'the iron law of oligarchy'
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy)
Britain alone of nearly all European nations avoided a bloody end to its
monarchy and revolution by allowing overwhelming pressure from the
people for a governmental change, to sack the set of oligarchs it had
and replace them with another. This wasn't, as people seem to think , to
'express the will of the people' or to even arrive at the right
decision, it was to prevent political differences from tearing the
nation in half.
Remainers completely lost the understanding of this. By opposing brexit
they have deliberately ripped the nation in half. Democracy isn't about
them being right or wrong, it is about preserving the unity of the
nation, and irrespective of whether one believes brexit is a mistake or
not the far far greater mistake is to oppose the democratic process and
make armed insurrection the only way to achieve change.I can respect
remainers for believing brexit is a mistake, I condemn them utterly for
not losing gracefully. I have seen one labour government after another
and not a few Tory governments make enormous mistakes, but still I bit
my lip and said nothing as they were democratically elected, and people
have to make their own mistakes to learn . Now the world knows what I
told them Tony Blair was...and the world is now understanding the EU is
what Nigel Farage said it was, too.
Les Gilets Jaunes are the only way France can attempt to change things.
Because they dont have democracy UK style and they are stuck in the EU.
And they had a revolution for the same reason.
Spain had a violent civil war and still isn't very democratic. Italy
murdered Mussolini, Germany still believes Hitler was right basically,
minus the (overt) racism, and prefers strong leadership to democracy.
And these are the people teaching US how to conduct ourselves
democratically?
Europe runs on might is right, and that means Germany.
We run on we don't care who is right, letting the majority cock up
until they realise the folly of their ways makes for less conflict and
is better for business.
In this case on the day - and it has to be on the day, or nothing is
ever settled, leave won.
It should not have been the end of the world, it should have been a
smooth managed transition to a Britain outside the EU. Had the EU been
the benevolent organisation it purported to be, it would have been.
But of course it wasn’t. It was a violent monster of a bureaucracy that
was extremely threatened and democracy wasn't going to get in its way,
so antidemocratic protest and every kind of spin, lies, and propaganda
were thrown into the pot.
In my entire life, beyond even Dr Kelly and the Iraq war, beyond even Ed
Millibands Climate Change act, I have never seen governmental practice
so perverted by politicians and the media.
It isn't about leaving the EU, its about saving democracy in Europe, now.
Democracy isn't perfect, but the alternatives that the EU is rushing
towards, is way way worse.
Watch and see.
>
>
--
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a
kind word alone.
Al Capone
Peeler
Jul 25, 2019, 3:58:51 AM7/25/19
to
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 08:28:32 +0100, Pamela wrote:
>>>
>>> Just more Project Fear lies.
>>
>> PROVE it, you clinically insane senile Australian asshole troll!
>
> The slippery Aussie wriggled out of my killfile the other day. Surely he
>>>
>>> Just more Project Fear lies.
>>
>> PROVE it, you clinically insane senile Australian asshole troll!
>
> can find a group on Facebook or wherever where his gibberish is welcome.
I doubt this asshole would be welcome ANYWHERE. Uncensored Usenet is the
ONLY place left for filthy trolls like him to hang out. ;-)
brightside
Jul 25, 2019, 4:50:17 AM7/25/19
to
On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 16:06:21 +0100, Pamela <pamela...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On 14:12 24 Jul 2019, Indy Jess John <jimw...@OMITblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 24/07/2019 11:55, Pamela wrote:
>>
>>> Oh my. So our general elections were being thwarted by the wicked EU and
>>> we never really had any democracy at all?
>>
>> No. Our general elections were rigged rather differently in that there
>> was rarely a party on the voting slip that didn't want to remain in the
>> EU. And even the parties which promised that any further loss of
>> sovereignty would be put to the public vote always lied about that.
>>
>> Every politician wants to be in the EU because the EU is gradually
>> extending the range of people guaranteed immunity from prosecution, and
>> eventually that scope will include the national governments of EU member
>> states
>>
>> It is also worth noting that David Cameron only offered a public
>> referendum because he was certain the result would be to remain, and he
>> was worried that without that referendum, too many Tory votes would be
>> lost to UKIP.
>>
>> That is why Brexit has to happen. The public will never ever be given
>> another chance to leave the EU. Only after we have left will the EU
>> talk sensibly to us. If we stay having invoked Article 50, we will be a
>> pariah state for many years; we will truly regret staying in.
>>
>> Regardless of whether an individual voted leave or remain in the
>> referendum, that is the brush the entire country is now tarred with.
>>
>> Jim
>should do it.
And what would the question(s) be?
>
>After all, democracy means being allowed to change your mind.
--
brightside S9
wrote:
>On 14:12 24 Jul 2019, Indy Jess John <jimw...@OMITblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 24/07/2019 11:55, Pamela wrote:
>>
>>> Oh my. So our general elections were being thwarted by the wicked EU and
>>> we never really had any democracy at all?
>>
>> No. Our general elections were rigged rather differently in that there
>> was rarely a party on the voting slip that didn't want to remain in the
>> EU. And even the parties which promised that any further loss of
>> sovereignty would be put to the public vote always lied about that.
>>
>> Every politician wants to be in the EU because the EU is gradually
>> extending the range of people guaranteed immunity from prosecution, and
>> eventually that scope will include the national governments of EU member
>> states
>>
>> It is also worth noting that David Cameron only offered a public
>> referendum because he was certain the result would be to remain, and he
>> was worried that without that referendum, too many Tory votes would be
>> lost to UKIP.
>>
>> That is why Brexit has to happen. The public will never ever be given
>> another chance to leave the EU. Only after we have left will the EU
>> talk sensibly to us. If we stay having invoked Article 50, we will be a
>> pariah state for many years; we will truly regret staying in.
>>
>> Regardless of whether an individual voted leave or remain in the
>> referendum, that is the brush the entire country is now tarred with.
>>
>
>A second referendum in the light of what we know 3 years later should clean
>this matter up. Alternatively a general election fought mainly on Brexit
>A second referendum in the light of what we know 3 years later should clean
>should do it.
And what would the question(s) be?
>
>After all, democracy means being allowed to change your mind.
--
brightside S9
dennis@home
Jul 25, 2019, 5:02:41 AM7/25/19
to
On 25/07/2019 08:19, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> Remainers completely lost the understanding of this. By opposing brexit
> they have deliberately ripped the nation in half. Democracy isn't about
> them being right or wrong, it is about preserving the unity of the
> nation, and irrespective of whether one believes brexit is a mistake or
> not the far far greater mistake is to oppose the democratic process and
> make armed insurrection the only way to achieve change.I can respect
> remainers for believing brexit is a mistake, I condemn them utterly for
> not losing gracefully. I have seen one labour government after another
> and not a few Tory governments make enormous mistakes, but still I bit
> my lip and said nothing as they were democratically elected, and people
> have to make their own mistakes to learn . Now the world knows what I
> told them Tony Blair was...and the world is now understanding the EU is
> what Nigel Farage said it was, too.
Remain opposed brexit well before you lot ripped the country apart.
> Remainers completely lost the understanding of this. By opposing brexit
> they have deliberately ripped the nation in half. Democracy isn't about
> them being right or wrong, it is about preserving the unity of the
> nation, and irrespective of whether one believes brexit is a mistake or
> not the far far greater mistake is to oppose the democratic process and
> make armed insurrection the only way to achieve change.I can respect
> remainers for believing brexit is a mistake, I condemn them utterly for
> not losing gracefully. I have seen one labour government after another
> and not a few Tory governments make enormous mistakes, but still I bit
> my lip and said nothing as they were democratically elected, and people
> have to make their own mistakes to learn . Now the world knows what I
> told them Tony Blair was...and the world is now understanding the EU is
> what Nigel Farage said it was, too.
It is brexiteers that have been stirring for years and they that have
caused the problem.
I know that you will blame someone else but that's just another of your
lies.
Indy Jess John
Jul 25, 2019, 5:23:01 AM7/25/19
to
On 25/07/2019 10:02, dennis@home wrote:
> Remain opposed brexit well before you lot ripped the country apart.
> It is brexiteers that have been stirring for years and they that have
> caused the problem.
Err. There wasn't a "remain" before the referendum.
> Remain opposed brexit well before you lot ripped the country apart.
> It is brexiteers that have been stirring for years and they that have
> caused the problem.
There was a mob in parliament who hoped to be awarded an EU pension and
that was their motivation for preserving the status quo, and there was
the general public who had virtually no hope of being offered the
ability to change anything because every Government had promised to ask
the people should there be a change to the EU which affected British
sovereignty, and none had honoured that promise.
So well done, Nigel Farage.
Jim
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Jul 25, 2019, 5:24:27 AM7/25/19
to
In message <09rijel8959v6g2i2...@4ax.com>, brightside
into account. (In other words, STV.) _Any_ just two-choice one -
whichever way it went - would still leave the country divided; if,
however, people could see that at least their second choice was the
chosen one, I think the British art of compromise would return.
So I think the question should be something like:
"Rank these in order of preference by putting 1, 2, 3 by them. (You do
not have to rank more than one if that is your view.)
[ ] Remain in the EU
[ ] Leave the EU with no deal
[ ] Leave the EU with the deal that has been agreed
[ ] Leave the EU with no deal, but leave northern Ireland in the EU"
The fourth one I suggest because NI wanted to remain in anyway, and it
seems the main objection to the negotiated deal was over the border. (I
know there are howls of "splitting up the UK", but that wouldn't
necessarily be the case: NI [and Wales, Scotland, other bits] already
has different laws and we aren't split; this would, arguably, be
_respecting_ their desires.
But the principle of an STV, rather than just binary, referendum is
what's important: as I've said, another binary one, whatever the
question and whatever the result, would still leave probably about 48%
of the electorate feeling furiously impotent.
Doesn't look like any referendum is on the cards anyway, under Boris.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
What a strange illusion it is to suppose that beauty is goodness. -Leo Tolstoy,
novelist and philosopher (1828-1910)
<brigh...@sonnenkinder.org> writes:
>On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 16:06:21 +0100, Pamela <pamela...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
[]
>On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 16:06:21 +0100, Pamela <pamela...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>>A second referendum in the light of what we know 3 years later should clean
>>this matter up. Alternatively a general election fought mainly on Brexit
>>should do it.
>
>And what would the question(s) be?
>>
>>After all, democracy means being allowed to change your mind.
>
It should be at least a three-way, with voters' second choices taken
>>this matter up. Alternatively a general election fought mainly on Brexit
>>should do it.
>
>And what would the question(s) be?
>>
>>After all, democracy means being allowed to change your mind.
>
into account. (In other words, STV.) _Any_ just two-choice one -
whichever way it went - would still leave the country divided; if,
however, people could see that at least their second choice was the
chosen one, I think the British art of compromise would return.
So I think the question should be something like:
"Rank these in order of preference by putting 1, 2, 3 by them. (You do
not have to rank more than one if that is your view.)
[ ] Remain in the EU
[ ] Leave the EU with no deal
[ ] Leave the EU with the deal that has been agreed
[ ] Leave the EU with no deal, but leave northern Ireland in the EU"
The fourth one I suggest because NI wanted to remain in anyway, and it
seems the main objection to the negotiated deal was over the border. (I
know there are howls of "splitting up the UK", but that wouldn't
necessarily be the case: NI [and Wales, Scotland, other bits] already
has different laws and we aren't split; this would, arguably, be
_respecting_ their desires.
But the principle of an STV, rather than just binary, referendum is
what's important: as I've said, another binary one, whatever the
question and whatever the result, would still leave probably about 48%
of the electorate feeling furiously impotent.
Doesn't look like any referendum is on the cards anyway, under Boris.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
What a strange illusion it is to suppose that beauty is goodness. -Leo Tolstoy,
novelist and philosopher (1828-1910)
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages