no top, too much bottom
Farage on GB News. The sounds from all the remote interviews was fine,
but from the studio it was terrible. It was badly out of sync, there was distortion on peaks, no top, too much bottom, and an odd room resonance.
At the start of Part 2, for just a few seconds there was good sound, in
sync, but with the bad sound on top of it and louder, and a second or so behind.
On Tue 08/03/2022 00:48, williamwright wrote:
Farage on GB News. The sounds from all the remote interviews was fine,
but from the studio it was terrible. It was badly out of sync, there was
distortion on peaks, no top, too much bottom, and an odd room resonance.
At the start of Part 2, for just a few seconds there was good sound, in
sync, but with the bad sound on top of it and louder, and a second or so
behind.
He said right at the beginning that for reasons he would not go into he
was broadcasting from Spain yesterday evening. I guess they would have
use Zoom or something similar to save cost?
Ugh. How can he be in Europe! Except maybe to stir up trouble that's
none of his business.
Ugh. How can he be in Europe! Except maybe to stir up trouble that's
none of his business.
On 08/03/2022 10:38, Wilf wrote:
Ugh. How can he be in Europe! Except maybe to stir up trouble that's
none of his business.
Do you now have to swear allegiance to the EU to visit "Europe"?
On 08/03/2022 10:52, MB wrote:
On 08/03/2022 10:38, Wilf wrote:
Ugh. How can he be in Europe! Except maybe to stir up trouble that's >>> none of his business.
+1
Do you now have to swear allegiance to the EU to visit "Europe"?
Yes, when you've built your political career on lying about how awful it
is, despite it being where your ancestors came from.
On 08/03/2022 10:38, Wilf wrote:
Ugh. How can he be in Europe! Except maybe to stir up trouble that's
none of his business.
Do you now have to swear allegiance to the EU to visit "Europe"?
MB wrote:
Do you now have to swear allegiance to the EU to visit "Europe"?
No, but he always claimed what an awful disgusting place it was.
Wilf wrote:
MB wrote:
Do you now have to swear allegiance to the EU to visit "Europe"?
No, but he always claimed what an awful disgusting place it was.
I don't remember him disparaging European countries or people, only the EU institutions ...
On 08/03/2022 10:52, MB wrote:
On 08/03/2022 10:38, Wilf wrote:
Ugh. How can he be in Europe! Except maybe to stir up trouble that's >>> none of his business.
+1
Do you now have to swear allegiance to the EU to visit "Europe"?
Yes, when you've built your political career on lying about how awful it
is, despite it being where your ancestors came from.
Wilf wrote:
MB wrote:
Do you now have to swear allegiance to the EU to visit "Europe"?
No, but he always claimed what an awful disgusting place it was.
I don't remember him disparaging European countries or people, only
the EU institutions ...
On 08/03/2022 14:12, Andy Burns wrote:
Wilf wrote:
MB wrote:
Do you now have to swear allegiance to the EU to visit "Europe"?
No, but he always claimed what an awful disgusting place it was.
I don't remember him disparaging European countries or people, only
the EU institutions ...
You beat me to it, that's my recollection too,
Exactly so. I belong to England, which is part of Great Britain,
which is part of Europe which contains the European nations.
None of that implies that I in any way owe allegiance to the
~political construct~ that is the undemocratic, unelected,
administered by patronage, unaccountable to its "subjects"
European Union. Oh dear me no, not at all.
On 08/03/2022 12:28, Java Jive wrote:
On 08/03/2022 10:52, MB wrote:
On 08/03/2022 10:38, Wilf wrote:
Ugh. How can he be in Europe! Except maybe to stir up trouble that's >>>> none of his business.
+1
Do you now have to swear allegiance to the EU to visit "Europe"?
Yes, when you've built your political career on lying about how awful
it is, despite it being where your ancestors came from.
It's public knowledge that 2 of his great-great-grandparents came from Germany but what's your source for the rest of his ancestry?
On 08/03/2022 15:24, Sn!pe wrote:
Exactly so. I belong to England, which is part of Great Britain,
which is part of Europe which contains the European nations.
None of that implies that I in any way owe allegiance to the
~political construct~ that is the undemocratic, unelected,
administered by patronage, unaccountable to its "subjects"
European Union. Oh dear me no, not at all.
Many of the Europhiles have difficult distinguishing the EU from Europe
and often seem to think the terms are interchangeable.
He said right at the beginning that for reasons he would not go into he
was broadcasting from Spain yesterday evening. I guess they would have
use Zoom or something similar to save cost?
On 08/03/2022 at 09:45, Woody wrote:
On Tue 08/03/2022 00:48, williamwright wrote:
Farage on GB News. The sounds from all the remote interviews was fine,
but from the studio it was terrible. It was badly out of sync, there was >> distortion on peaks, no top, too much bottom, and an odd room resonance. >> At the start of Part 2, for just a few seconds there was good sound, in
sync, but with the bad sound on top of it and louder, and a second or so >> behind.
He said right at the beginning that for reasons he would not go into heUgh. How can he be in Europe! Except maybe to stir up trouble that's
was broadcasting from Spain yesterday evening. I guess they would have
use Zoom or something similar to save cost?
none of his business.
--
Wilf
On 08/03/2022 14:26, Robin wrote:
On 08/03/2022 12:28, Java Jive wrote:
On 08/03/2022 10:52, MB wrote:
On 08/03/2022 10:38, Wilf wrote:
Ugh. How can he be in Europe! Except maybe to stir up trouble that's >>>>> none of his business.
+1
Do you now have to swear allegiance to the EU to visit "Europe"?
Yes, when you've built your political career on lying about how awful
it is, despite it being where your ancestors came from.
It's public knowledge that 2 of his great-great-grandparents came from
Germany but what's your source for the rest of his ancestry?
Doubtless you can read Wikipedia as well as me. His is clearly not an English name, and has been suggested to be French Huguenot in origin,
but even if it's just the two great-great-grandparents, that still makes
his lying about Europe somewhat hypocritical, don't you think?
On 08/03/2022 16:28, MB wrote:
On 08/03/2022 15:24, Sn!pe wrote:
Exactly so. I belong to England, which is part of Great Britain,
which is part of Europe which contains the European nations.
None of that implies that I in any way owe allegiance to the
~political construct~ that is the undemocratic, unelected,
administered by patronage, unaccountable to its "subjects"
European Union. Oh dear me no, not at all.
None of that implies that you have the right to repeat the above lies
about the EU yet again. Do yourself a favour, and learn how the EU
really works. It is as democratic, probably more so, than any
government in the UK.
On 08/03/2022 14:26, Robin wrote:
On 08/03/2022 12:28, Java Jive wrote:
On 08/03/2022 10:52, MB wrote:
On 08/03/2022 10:38, Wilf wrote:
Ugh. How can he be in Europe! Except maybe to stir up trouble that's >>>>> none of his business.
+1
Do you now have to swear allegiance to the EU to visit "Europe"?
Yes, when you've built your political career on lying about how awful
it is, despite it being where your ancestors came from.
It's public knowledge that 2 of his great-great-grandparents came from
Germany but what's your source for the rest of his ancestry?
Doubtless you can read Wikipedia as well as me. His is clearly not an English name, and has been suggested to be French Huguenot in origin,
but even if it's just the two great-great-grandparents, that still makes
his lying about Europe somewhat hypocritical, don't you think?
On 08/03/2022 17:12, Java Jive wrote:
Doubtless you can read Wikipedia as well as me. His is clearly not an
English name, and has been suggested to be French Huguenot in origin,
but even if it's just the two great-great-grandparents, that still makes
his lying about Europe somewhat hypocritical, don't you think?
He didn't lie about Europe, because his beef was with the EU and not the member states themselves.
On 08/03/2022 17:12, Java Jive wrote:
Doubtless you can read Wikipedia as well as me. His is clearly not an
English name, and has been suggested to be French Huguenot in origin,
but even if it's just the two great-great-grandparents, that still
makes his lying about Europe somewhat hypocritical, don't you think?
You made a a plain statement of fact as to his ancestors which you
cannot now back up.
The possible Huguenot origin of the name is irrelevant. It should be
obvious to the meanest intellect that a surname may be inherited from a person who makes up a tiny fraction of his ancestry from 300 years ago.
And no, I don't agree that it's OK for you to lie about someone just
because you don't like his views.
(Also, while I am no fan of his, like
others that I recall him slagging of EU institutions, leaders and
officials but not countries or peoples or the whole continent.)
But I do hate hypocrisy.
On 08/03/2022 17:23, Java Jive wrote:
On 08/03/2022 16:28, MB wrote:
On 08/03/2022 15:24, Sn!pe wrote:
None of that implies that I in any way owe allegiance to the
~political construct~ that is the undemocratic, unelected,
administered by patronage, unaccountable to its "subjects"
European Union. Oh dear me no, not at all.
None of that implies that you have the right to repeat the above lies
about the EU yet again. Do yourself a favour, and learn how the EU
really works. It is as democratic, probably more so, than any
government in the UK.
The man in the street elects the MPs who form the Parliament from which
is drawn the UK Government. The UK Parliament can develop policy.
The Man in the street elects MEPs who form the European Parliament. The European Parliament cannot develop policy, it can only discuss and vote
on policies presented to them by the European Commission.
On 08/03/2022 20:59, Robin wrote:
On 08/03/2022 17:12, Java Jive wrote:
Doubtless you can read Wikipedia as well as me. His is clearly not
an English name, and has been suggested to be French Huguenot in
origin, but even if it's just the two great-great-grandparents, that
still makes his lying about Europe somewhat hypocritical, don't you
think?
You made a a plain statement of fact as to his ancestors which you
cannot now back up.
Nonsense, you yourself have admitted them to exist:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Farage#Ancestry_and_childhood
The possible Huguenot origin of the name is irrelevant. It should be
obvious to the meanest intellect that a surname may be inherited from
a person who makes up a tiny fraction of his ancestry from 300 years ago.
A *minimum* of 2 x great great grandparents is 2 / 2^4 which is 1/8, not
a tiny fraction of his ancestry.
And no, I don't agree that it's OK for you to lie about someone just
because you don't like his views.
I didn't lie, as you yourself admitted up thread.
(Also, while I am no fan of his, like others that I recall him
slagging of EU institutions, leaders and officials but not countries
or peoples or the whole continent.)
The EU is part of Europe, so in lying about the EU, he is inevitably
lying about Europe as well.
But I do hate hypocrisy.
Don't look in a mirror then.
On 08/03/2022 20:59, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 08/03/2022 17:23, Java Jive wrote:
On 08/03/2022 16:28, MB wrote:
On 08/03/2022 15:24, Sn!pe wrote:
None of that implies that I in any way owe allegiance to the
~political construct~ that is the undemocratic, unelected,
administered by patronage, unaccountable to its "subjects"
European Union. Oh dear me no, not at all.
None of that implies that you have the right to repeat the above lies
about the EU yet again. Do yourself a favour, and learn how the EU
really works. It is as democratic, probably more so, than any
government in the UK.
The man in the street elects the MPs who form the Parliament from
which is drawn the UK Government. The UK Parliament can develop policy.
The Man in the street elects MEPs who form the European Parliament.
The European Parliament cannot develop policy, it can only discuss and
vote on policies presented to them by the European Commission.
Nonsense, reread the links given, which I note that you've snipped. The Commission is the EU's equivalent of our civil service, and as such it
is responsible for drafting legislation requested by the democratically elected European Parliament, and by the European Council, which itself
is composed of the democratically elected leaders of member nations. If this is somehow undemocratic, how come you're not complaining that our
civil service is not democratically elected?
On 08/03/2022 21:59, Java Jive wrote:
On 08/03/2022 20:59, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 08/03/2022 17:23, Java Jive wrote:
On 08/03/2022 16:28, MB wrote:
On 08/03/2022 15:24, Sn!pe wrote:
None of that implies that I in any way owe allegiance to the
~political construct~ that is the undemocratic, unelected,
administered by patronage, unaccountable to its "subjects"
European Union. Oh dear me no, not at all.
None of that implies that you have the right to repeat the above lies
about the EU yet again. Do yourself a favour, and learn how the EU
really works. It is as democratic, probably more so, than any
government in the UK.
The man in the street elects the MPs who form the Parliament from
which is drawn the UK Government. The UK Parliament can develop policy. >>>
The Man in the street elects MEPs who form the European Parliament.
The European Parliament cannot develop policy, it can only discuss and
vote on policies presented to them by the European Commission.
Nonsense, reread the links given, which I note that you've snipped. The
Commission is the EU's equivalent of our civil service, and as such it
is responsible for drafting legislation requested by the democratically
elected European Parliament, and by the European Council, which itself
is composed of the democratically elected leaders of member nations. If
this is somehow undemocratic, how come you're not complaining that our
civil service is not democratically elected?
The Commission is now like the CS /plus/ Ministers. And unlike
Ministers here, only the Commission can start the formal legislative
process.
Your own link has it right:
"The European Commission (EC) is the executive branch of the European
Union (EU). It operates as a cabinet government, with 27 members of the Commission (informally known as "Commissioners") headed by a
President.It includes an administrative body of about 32,000 European
civil servants....The governmental powers of the Commission have been
such that some, including former Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt,
have suggested changing its name to the "European Government", calling
the present name of the Commission "ridiculous"."
and
"The Commission differs from the other institutions in that it alone has legislative initiative in the EU. Only the commission can make formal proposals for legislation: they cannot originate in the legislative branches."
On 08/03/2022 20:52, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 08/03/2022 17:12, Java Jive wrote:
Doubtless you can read Wikipedia as well as me. His is clearly not an
English name, and has been suggested to be French Huguenot in origin,
but even if it's just the two great-great-grandparents, that still makes >>> his lying about Europe somewhat hypocritical, don't you think?
He didn't lie about Europe, because his beef was with the EU and not the
member states themselves.
The EU is part of Europe, so in lying about the EU, he is inevitably
lying about Europe as well.
On 08/03/2022 21:46, Java Jive wrote:
On 08/03/2022 20:52, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 08/03/2022 17:12, Java Jive wrote:
Doubtless you can read Wikipedia as well as me. His is clearly not an >>>> English name, and has been suggested to be French Huguenot in origin,
but even if it's just the two great-great-grandparents, that still
makes
his lying about Europe somewhat hypocritical, don't you think?
He didn't lie about Europe, because his beef was with the EU and not the >>> member states themselves.
The EU is part of Europe, so in lying about the EU, he is inevitably
lying about Europe as well.
Did you read that before you sent it? It is a complete non-sequitur.
My eyebrows are part of my body. Anyone complaining about my eyebrows
being too bushy is not automatically criticising the rest of my person.
Don't forget that Switzerland is part of Europe and not part of the EU.
They are different entities.
On 08/03/2022 21:52, Java Jive wrote:
On 08/03/2022 20:59, Robin wrote:
On 08/03/2022 17:12, Java Jive wrote:
Doubtless you can read Wikipedia as well as me. His is clearly not
an English name, and has been suggested to be French Huguenot in
origin, but even if it's just the two great-great-grandparents, that
still makes his lying about Europe somewhat hypocritical, don't you
think?
You made a a plain statement of fact as to his ancestors which you
cannot now back up.
Nonsense, you yourself have admitted them to exist:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Farage#Ancestry_and_childhood
The possible Huguenot origin of the name is irrelevant. It should be
obvious to the meanest intellect that a surname may be inherited from
a person who makes up a tiny fraction of his ancestry from 300 years
ago.
A *minimum* of 2 x great great grandparents is 2 / 2^4 which is 1/8,
not a tiny fraction of his ancestry.
And no, I don't agree that it's OK for you to lie about someone just
because you don't like his views.
I didn't lie, as you yourself admitted up thread.
(Also, while I am no fan of his, like others that I recall him
slagging of EU institutions, leaders and officials but not countries
or peoples or the whole continent.)
The EU is part of Europe, so in lying about the EU, he is inevitably
lying about Europe as well.
But I do hate hypocrisy.
Don't look in a mirror then.
The most charitable interpretation I can put on that is that you do not understand the difference between "where your ancestors came from" and
"where some of your ancestors came from"; or between the political and economic union that is the EU and its member States and populations.
On 08/03/2022 21:59, Java Jive wrote:
On 08/03/2022 20:59, Indy Jess John wrote:
The man in the street elects the MPs who form the Parliament from
which is drawn the UK Government. The UK Parliament can develop policy. >>>
The Man in the street elects MEPs who form the European Parliament.
The European Parliament cannot develop policy, it can only discuss
and vote on policies presented to them by the European Commission.
Nonsense, reread the links given, which I note that you've snipped.
The Commission is the EU's equivalent of our civil service, and as
such it is responsible for drafting legislation requested by the
democratically elected European Parliament, and by the European
Council, which itself is composed of the democratically elected
leaders of member nations. If this is somehow undemocratic, how come
you're not complaining that our civil service is not democratically
elected?
The Commission is now like the CS /plus/ Ministers. And unlike
Ministers here, only the Commission can start the formal legislative
process.
Your own link has it right:
"The European Commission (EC) is the executive branch of the European
Union (EU). It operates as a cabinet government, with 27 members of the Commission (informally known as "Commissioners") headed by a
President.It includes an administrative body of about 32,000 European
civil servants....The governmental powers of the Commission have been
such that some, including former Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt,
have suggested changing its name to the "European Government", calling
the present name of the Commission "ridiculous"."
and
"The Commission differs from the other institutions in that it alone has legislative initiative in the EU. Only the commission can make formal proposals for legislation: they cannot originate in the legislative branches."
On 08/03/2022 09:45, Woody wrote:
He said right at the beginning that for reasons he would not go into
he was broadcasting from Spain yesterday evening. I guess they would
have use Zoom or something similar to save cost?
Oh, I didn't hear that. It did sound as if they had a mike picking up
the sound from a crap telly!
Bill
On 08/03/2022 23:38, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 08/03/2022 21:46, Java Jive wrote:
On 08/03/2022 20:52, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 08/03/2022 17:12, Java Jive wrote:
Doubtless you can read Wikipedia as well as me. His is clearly not an >>>>> English name, and has been suggested to be French Huguenot in origin, >>>>> but even if it's just the two great-great-grandparents, that still
makes
his lying about Europe somewhat hypocritical, don't you think?
He didn't lie about Europe, because his beef was with the EU and not the >>>> member states themselves.
The EU is part of Europe, so in lying about the EU, he is inevitably
lying about Europe as well.
Did you read that before you sent it? It is a complete non-sequitur.
Yes. I stand by it.
My eyebrows are part of my body. Anyone complaining about my eyebrows
being too bushy is not automatically criticising the rest of my person.
But they *are* complaining about your person.
Don't forget that Switzerland is part of Europe and not part of the EU.
They are different entities.
Just as your hands are not your eyebrows.
On 08/03/2022 22:08, Robin wrote:
On 08/03/2022 21:52, Java Jive wrote:
On 08/03/2022 20:59, Robin wrote:
On 08/03/2022 17:12, Java Jive wrote:
Doubtless you can read Wikipedia as well as me. His is clearly not
an English name, and has been suggested to be French Huguenot in
origin, but even if it's just the two great-great-grandparents, that >>>>> still makes his lying about Europe somewhat hypocritical, don't you
think?
You made a a plain statement of fact as to his ancestors which you
cannot now back up.
Nonsense, you yourself have admitted them to exist:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Farage#Ancestry_and_childhood
The possible Huguenot origin of the name is irrelevant. It should be
obvious to the meanest intellect that a surname may be inherited from
a person who makes up a tiny fraction of his ancestry from 300 years
ago.
A *minimum* of 2 x great great grandparents is 2 / 2^4 which is 1/8,
not a tiny fraction of his ancestry.
And no, I don't agree that it's OK for you to lie about someone just
because you don't like his views.
I didn't lie, as you yourself admitted up thread.
(Also, while I am no fan of his, like others that I recall him
slagging of EU institutions, leaders and officials but not countries
or peoples or the whole continent.)
The EU is part of Europe, so in lying about the EU, he is inevitably
lying about Europe as well.
But I do hate hypocrisy.
Don't look in a mirror then.
The most charitable interpretation I can put on that is that you do not
understand the difference between "where your ancestors came from" and
"where some of your ancestors came from"; or between the political and
economic union that is the EU and its member States and populations.
What difference does it make in kind if he slags off two of his
ancestors or more of them? And if he slags off the EU, de ipso facto he
is also slagging off Europe.
On 08/03/2022 22:38, Robin wrote:
On 08/03/2022 21:59, Java Jive wrote:
On 08/03/2022 20:59, Indy Jess John wrote:
The man in the street elects the MPs who form the Parliament from
which is drawn the UK Government. The UK Parliament can develop policy. >>>>
The Man in the street elects MEPs who form the European Parliament.
The European Parliament cannot develop policy, it can only discuss
and vote on policies presented to them by the European Commission.
Nonsense, reread the links given, which I note that you've snipped.
The Commission is the EU's equivalent of our civil service, and as
such it is responsible for drafting legislation requested by the
democratically elected European Parliament, and by the European
Council, which itself is composed of the democratically elected
leaders of member nations. If this is somehow undemocratic, how come
you're not complaining that our civil service is not democratically
elected?
The Commission is now like the CS /plus/ Ministers. And unlike
Ministers here, only the Commission can start the formal legislative
process.
Your own link has it right:
"The European Commission (EC) is the executive branch of the European
Union (EU). It operates as a cabinet government, with 27 members of the
Commission (informally known as "Commissioners") headed by a
President.It includes an administrative body of about 32,000 European
civil servants....The governmental powers of the Commission have been
such that some, including former Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt,
have suggested changing its name to the "European Government", calling
the present name of the Commission "ridiculous"."
and
"The Commission differs from the other institutions in that it alone has
legislative initiative in the EU. Only the commission can make formal
proposals for legislation: they cannot originate in the legislative
branches."
Selective quoting, the next section reads [my caps]: "Under the Treaty
of Lisbon, no legislative act is allowed in the field of the Common
Foreign and Security Policy. In the other fields, the Council and
Parliament are able to request legislation; IN MOST CASES THE COMMISSION INITIATES ON THE BASIS OF THESE PROPOSALS. This monopoly is designed to ensure coordinated and coherent drafting of EU law.[48][49]"
So, although the Commission alone can initiate legislation, there would
be little point in it doing so against the wishes of either the Council
or the Parliament, because, just as in the UK, these democratically
elected, one directly the other indirectly, bodies are required to
ratify all law drafted by the Commission, so why would the Commission
waste their own time and create a rod for their own backs by drafting unpopular laws that were never likely to get past the democratic process
of ratification? Which was exactly the sort of crap being claimed up
thread, and that I was debunking, let's look at it again: "the political construct that is the undemocratic, unelected, administered by
patronage, unaccountable to its "subjects" European Union." Nowhere is
that borne out by the documents linked. It's just another Europhobic lie.
To see how the EU actually works in practice, take, for example, the
proposed law to enforce USB-C charging cables for small electronic
devices. This began as long ago as 2014 through a majority vote in the European Parliament ...
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20140307IPR38122/meps-push-for-common-charger-for-all-mobile-phones
... and resulted in a voluntary Memorandum of Understanding. However, recently the MEPs decided that this voluntary arrangement was not moving things on completely and quickly enough, and requested the Commission to produce legislation ...
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2020-0024_EN.html
... so the Commission went and produced a report ...
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/90e9a07d-1054-11ec-9151-01aa75ed71a1
... and then a proposal for an appropriate amendment to an existing
directive to cover the issue ...
https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/46755
... which is about where we are at now, legislation is expected to come
into force in 2024.
And, remember, this arose from an initiative by democratically elected
MEPs, not the Commission. You could argue that it's taken too long to
get there, but that was mainly because it was decided to try a voluntary approach first, and the reluctance of one particular major brand to
comply with the voluntary agreement.
On 09/03/2022 03:07, Java Jive wrote:
On 08/03/2022 22:38, Robin wrote:Hoist by your own petard!
On 08/03/2022 21:59, Java Jive wrote:
On 08/03/2022 20:59, Indy Jess John wrote:
The man in the street elects the MPs who form the Parliament from
which is drawn the UK Government. The UK Parliament can develop policy. >>>>>
The Man in the street elects MEPs who form the European Parliament.
The European Parliament cannot develop policy, it can only discuss
and vote on policies presented to them by the European Commission.
Nonsense, reread the links given, which I note that you've snipped.
The Commission is the EU's equivalent of our civil service, and as
such it is responsible for drafting legislation requested by the
democratically elected European Parliament, and by the European
Council, which itself is composed of the democratically elected
leaders of member nations. If this is somehow undemocratic, how come
you're not complaining that our civil service is not democratically
elected?
The Commission is now like the CS /plus/ Ministers. And unlike
Ministers here, only the Commission can start the formal legislative
process.
Your own link has it right:
"The European Commission (EC) is the executive branch of the European
Union (EU). It operates as a cabinet government, with 27 members of the
Commission (informally known as "Commissioners") headed by a
President.It includes an administrative body of about 32,000 European
civil servants....The governmental powers of the Commission have been
such that some, including former Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt, >>> have suggested changing its name to the "European Government", calling
the present name of the Commission "ridiculous"."
and
"The Commission differs from the other institutions in that it alone has >>> legislative initiative in the EU. Only the commission can make formal
proposals for legislation: they cannot originate in the legislative
branches."
Selective quoting, the next section reads [my caps]: "Under the Treaty
of Lisbon, no legislative act is allowed in the field of the Common
Foreign and Security Policy. In the other fields, the Council and
Parliament are able to request legislation; IN MOST CASES THE COMMISSION
INITIATES ON THE BASIS OF THESE PROPOSALS. This monopoly is designed to
ensure coordinated and coherent drafting of EU law.[48][49]"
So, although the Commission alone can initiate legislation, there would
be little point in it doing so against the wishes of either the Council
or the Parliament, because, just as in the UK, these democratically
elected, one directly the other indirectly, bodies are required to
ratify all law drafted by the Commission, so why would the Commission
waste their own time and create a rod for their own backs by drafting
unpopular laws that were never likely to get past the democratic process
of ratification? Which was exactly the sort of crap being claimed up
thread, and that I was debunking, let's look at it again: "the political
construct that is the undemocratic, unelected, administered by
patronage, unaccountable to its "subjects" European Union." Nowhere is
that borne out by the documents linked. It's just another Europhobic lie. >>
To see how the EU actually works in practice, take, for example, the
proposed law to enforce USB-C charging cables for small electronic
devices. This began as long ago as 2014 through a majority vote in the
European Parliament ...
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20140307IPR38122/meps-push-for-common-charger-for-all-mobile-phones
... and resulted in a voluntary Memorandum of Understanding. However,
recently the MEPs decided that this voluntary arrangement was not moving
things on completely and quickly enough, and requested the Commission to
produce legislation ...
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2020-0024_EN.html
... so the Commission went and produced a report ...
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/90e9a07d-1054-11ec-9151-01aa75ed71a1
... and then a proposal for an appropriate amendment to an existing
directive to cover the issue ...
https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/46755
... which is about where we are at now, legislation is expected to come
into force in 2024.
And, remember, this arose from an initiative by democratically elected
MEPs, not the Commission. You could argue that it's taken too long to
get there, but that was mainly because it was decided to try a voluntary
approach first, and the reluctance of one particular major brand to
comply with the voluntary agreement.
In the UK the electorate vote for an MP. That MP goes to the House of
Commons which is an executive organisation which develops and issues legislation.
The electorate also vote for MEPs who take their place in the European Parliament. From your example above the MEPs only suggest to the
Commission what should be done they do not issue legislation they have developed. Thus the European Parliament is not an executive
organisation. The MEPs are elected, but those elected only form a
lobbying organisation, under a fancy name to fool gullible people like
you into believing they have more authority than they actually have.
Jim
I’m pro EU. However, there is a fundamental democratic deficit issue. With our own parliament we can, and do, chuck the government out when the population has had enough with the current lot. This is in practical terms impossible with the EU structure as it currently is. Commissioners are, granted, sent by democratically elected governments, but each county’s electorate only has sway over their commissioner. (And those commissioners tend to be washed up politicians). Both the commission and the EU
parliament are coalitions, and it’s almost impossible to throw the lot out. Fear of being ejected from office is one of the very few levers we have as citizens.
Commissioners are,
granted, sent by democratically elected governments, but each county’s electorate only has sway over their commissioner.
Both the commission and the EUlot out
parliament are coalitions, and it’s almost impossible to throw the
And Your point about coalitions is because it's PR, which we don't
happen to have here in the UK. And because of that, our representation
in our own parliament is overridden sometimes by a party which may have received a rather small vote.
On 09/03/2022 11:14, Wilf wrote:
And Your point about coalitions is because it's PR, which we don't
happen to have here in the UK. And because of that, our representation
in our own parliament is overridden sometimes by a party which may have
received a rather small vote.
Though the same happens in PR where a party with a very small vote if
brought into a coalition. In Scotland, the SNP has done a deal with the
Green Party which gives them a lot of power even though they received
few votes (and many hate them!).
On 09/03/2022 03:07, Java Jive wrote:
On 08/03/2022 22:38, Robin wrote:Hoist by your own petard!
On 08/03/2022 21:59, Java Jive wrote:
On 08/03/2022 20:59, Indy Jess John wrote:
The man in the street elects the MPs who form the Parliament from
which is drawn the UK Government. The UK Parliament can develop
policy.
The Man in the street elects MEPs who form the European Parliament.
The European Parliament cannot develop policy, it can only discuss
and vote on policies presented to them by the European Commission.
Nonsense, reread the links given, which I note that you've snipped.
The Commission is the EU's equivalent of our civil service, and as
such it is responsible for drafting legislation requested by the
democratically elected European Parliament, and by the European
Council, which itself is composed of the democratically elected
leaders of member nations. If this is somehow undemocratic, how come >>>> you're not complaining that our civil service is not democratically
elected?
The Commission is now like the CS /plus/ Ministers. And unlike
Ministers here, only the Commission can start the formal legislative
process.
Your own link has it right:
"The European Commission (EC) is the executive branch of the European
Union (EU). It operates as a cabinet government, with 27 members of the
Commission (informally known as "Commissioners") headed by a
President.It includes an administrative body of about 32,000 European
civil servants....The governmental powers of the Commission have been
such that some, including former Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt, >>> have suggested changing its name to the "European Government", calling
the present name of the Commission "ridiculous"."
and
"The Commission differs from the other institutions in that it alone has >>> legislative initiative in the EU. Only the commission can make formal
proposals for legislation: they cannot originate in the legislative
branches."
Selective quoting, the next section reads [my caps]: "Under the Treaty
of Lisbon, no legislative act is allowed in the field of the Common
Foreign and Security Policy. In the other fields, the Council and
Parliament are able to request legislation; IN MOST CASES THE COMMISSION
INITIATES ON THE BASIS OF THESE PROPOSALS. This monopoly is designed to
ensure coordinated and coherent drafting of EU law.[48][49]"
So, although the Commission alone can initiate legislation, there would
be little point in it doing so against the wishes of either the Council
or the Parliament, because, just as in the UK, these democratically
elected, one directly the other indirectly, bodies are required to
ratify all law drafted by the Commission, so why would the Commission
waste their own time and create a rod for their own backs by drafting
unpopular laws that were never likely to get past the democratic process
of ratification? Which was exactly the sort of crap being claimed up
thread, and that I was debunking, let's look at it again: "the political
construct that is the undemocratic, unelected, administered by
patronage, unaccountable to its "subjects" European Union." Nowhere is
that borne out by the documents linked. It's just another Europhobic
lie.
To see how the EU actually works in practice, take, for example, the
proposed law to enforce USB-C charging cables for small electronic
devices. This began as long ago as 2014 through a majority vote in the
European Parliament ...
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20140307IPR38122/meps-push-for-common-charger-for-all-mobile-phones
... and resulted in a voluntary Memorandum of Understanding. However,
recently the MEPs decided that this voluntary arrangement was not moving
things on completely and quickly enough, and requested the Commission to
produce legislation ...
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2020-0024_EN.html
... so the Commission went and produced a report ...
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/90e9a07d-1054-11ec-9151-01aa75ed71a1
... and then a proposal for an appropriate amendment to an existing
directive to cover the issue ...
https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/46755
... which is about where we are at now, legislation is expected to come
into force in 2024.
And, remember, this arose from an initiative by democratically elected
MEPs, not the Commission. You could argue that it's taken too long to
get there, but that was mainly because it was decided to try a voluntary
approach first, and the reluctance of one particular major brand to
comply with the voluntary agreement.
In the UK the electorate vote for an MP. That MP goes to the House of
Commons which is an executive organisation which develops and issues legislation.
The electorate also vote for MEPs who take their place in the European Parliament. From your example above the MEPs only suggest to the
Commission what should be done they do not issue legislation they have developed. Thus the European Parliament is not an executive
organisation. The MEPs are elected, but those elected only form a
lobbying organisation, under a fancy name to fool gullible people like
you into believing they have more authority than they actually have.
On 09/03/2022 11:14, Wilf wrote:
And Your point about coalitions is because it's PR, which we don't
happen to have here in the UK. And because of that, our representation
in our own parliament is overridden sometimes by a party which may have
received a rather small vote.
Though the same happens in PR where a party with a very small vote if
brought into a coalition. In Scotland, the SNP has done a deal with the
Green Party which gives them a lot of power even though they received
few votes (and many hate them!).
On 09/03/2022 01:32, Java Jive wrote:
On 08/03/2022 23:38, Indy Jess John wrote:I won't trim it. I will let others recognise how ridiculous your
On 08/03/2022 21:46, Java Jive wrote:
On 08/03/2022 20:52, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 08/03/2022 17:12, Java Jive wrote:
Doubtless you can read Wikipedia as well as me. His is clearly
not an
English name, and has been suggested to be French Huguenot in origin, >>>>>> but even if it's just the two great-great-grandparents, that still >>>>>> makes
his lying about Europe somewhat hypocritical, don't you think?
He didn't lie about Europe, because his beef was with the EU and
not the
member states themselves.
The EU is part of Europe, so in lying about the EU, he is inevitably
lying about Europe as well.
Did you read that before you sent it? It is a complete non-sequitur.
Yes. I stand by it.
My eyebrows are part of my body. Anyone complaining about my eyebrows
being too bushy is not automatically criticising the rest of my person.
But they *are* complaining about your person.
Don't forget that Switzerland is part of Europe and not part of the EU.
They are different entities.
Just as your hands are not your eyebrows.
position is.
On 09/03/2022 01:35, Java Jive wrote:
What difference does it make in kind if he slags off two of his
ancestors or more of them? And if he slags off the EU, de ipso facto he
is also slagging off Europe.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
At least people know the potential score under PR. They know that,
however problematical coalition governments may be, they at least get represented in parliament according to the proportion of their votes.
43.6% of voters voted for the Conservatives last time, yet they have an overall majority of 80 in the Commons (over 55% of MPs).
On 09/03/2022 11:34, Wilf wrote:
At least people know the potential score under PR. They know that,
however problematical coalition governments may be, they at least get
represented in parliament according to the proportion of their votes.
43.6% of voters voted for the Conservatives last time, yet they have an
overall majority of 80 in the Commons (over 55% of MPs).
But under PR a small party that received few votes can hold virtually a
large party to ransom.
On 09/03/2022 09:33, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 09/03/2022 03:07, Java Jive wrote:
On 08/03/2022 22:38, Robin wrote:Hoist by your own petard!
On 08/03/2022 21:59, Java Jive wrote:
On 08/03/2022 20:59, Indy Jess John wrote:
The man in the street elects the MPs who form the Parliament from
which is drawn the UK Government. The UK Parliament can develop
policy.
The Man in the street elects MEPs who form the European Parliament. >>>>>> The European Parliament cannot develop policy, it can only discuss >>>>>> and vote on policies presented to them by the European Commission.
Nonsense, reread the links given, which I note that you've snipped.
The Commission is the EU's equivalent of our civil service, and as
such it is responsible for drafting legislation requested by the
democratically elected European Parliament, and by the European
Council, which itself is composed of the democratically elected
leaders of member nations. If this is somehow undemocratic, how come >>>>> you're not complaining that our civil service is not democratically
elected?
The Commission is now like the CS /plus/ Ministers. And unlike
Ministers here, only the Commission can start the formal legislative
process.
Your own link has it right:
"The European Commission (EC) is the executive branch of the European
Union (EU). It operates as a cabinet government, with 27 members of the >>>> Commission (informally known as "Commissioners") headed by a
President.It includes an administrative body of about 32,000 European
civil servants....The governmental powers of the Commission have been
such that some, including former Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt, >>>> have suggested changing its name to the "European Government", calling >>>> the present name of the Commission "ridiculous"."
and
"The Commission differs from the other institutions in that it alone has >>>> legislative initiative in the EU. Only the commission can make formal
proposals for legislation: they cannot originate in the legislative
branches."
Selective quoting, the next section reads [my caps]: "Under the Treaty
of Lisbon, no legislative act is allowed in the field of the Common
Foreign and Security Policy. In the other fields, the Council and
Parliament are able to request legislation; IN MOST CASES THE COMMISSION >>> INITIATES ON THE BASIS OF THESE PROPOSALS. This monopoly is designed to
ensure coordinated and coherent drafting of EU law.[48][49]"
So, although the Commission alone can initiate legislation, there would
be little point in it doing so against the wishes of either the Council
or the Parliament, because, just as in the UK, these democratically
elected, one directly the other indirectly, bodies are required to
ratify all law drafted by the Commission, so why would the Commission
waste their own time and create a rod for their own backs by drafting
unpopular laws that were never likely to get past the democratic process >>> of ratification? Which was exactly the sort of crap being claimed up
thread, and that I was debunking, let's look at it again: "the political >>> construct that is the undemocratic, unelected, administered by
patronage, unaccountable to its "subjects" European Union." Nowhere is
that borne out by the documents linked. It's just another Europhobic
lie.
To see how the EU actually works in practice, take, for example, the
proposed law to enforce USB-C charging cables for small electronic
devices. This began as long ago as 2014 through a majority vote in the
European Parliament ...
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20140307IPR38122/meps-push-for-common-charger-for-all-mobile-phones
... and resulted in a voluntary Memorandum of Understanding. However,
recently the MEPs decided that this voluntary arrangement was not moving >>> things on completely and quickly enough, and requested the Commission to >>> produce legislation ...
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2020-0024_EN.html
... so the Commission went and produced a report ...
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/90e9a07d-1054-11ec-9151-01aa75ed71a1
... and then a proposal for an appropriate amendment to an existing
directive to cover the issue ...
https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/46755
... which is about where we are at now, legislation is expected to come
into force in 2024.
And, remember, this arose from an initiative by democratically elected
MEPs, not the Commission. You could argue that it's taken too long to
get there, but that was mainly because it was decided to try a voluntary >>> approach first, and the reluctance of one particular major brand to
comply with the voluntary agreement.
Not.
In the UK the electorate vote for an MP. That MP goes to the House of
Commons which is an executive organisation which develops and issues
legislation.
Although it can do so, by Private Members' Bills, but see below, it
doesn't usually *draft* the legislation, rather its role is to ratify or
not legislation produced by others who are more experienced at that particular job, our civil service. In this respect, there is very
little difference between the EU modus operandi and that of the UK government. See the link already given:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament
"Therefore, while Parliament can amend and reject legislation, to make a proposal for legislation, it needs the Commission to draft a bill before anything can become law.[49] The value of such a power has been
questioned by noting that in the national legislatures of the member
states 85% of initiatives introduced without executive support fail to
become law.[50] Yet it has been argued by former Parliament president Hans-Gert Pöttering that as the Parliament does have the right to ask
the Commission to draft such legislation, and as the Commission is
following Parliament's proposals more and more Parliament does have a de facto right of legislative initiative.[7]"
The electorate also vote for MEPs who take their place in the European
Parliament. From your example above the MEPs only suggest to the
Commission what should be done they do not issue legislation they have
developed. Thus the European Parliament is not an executive
organisation. The MEPs are elected, but those elected only form a
lobbying organisation, under a fancy name to fool gullible people like
you into believing they have more authority than they actually have.
Nonsense, as demonstrated in the example I gave up thread, and the quote immediately above, which continues into the next section:
"Legislative procedure
With each new treaty, the powers of the Parliament, in terms of its role
in the Union's legislative procedures, have expanded. The procedure
which has slowly become dominant is the "ordinary legislative procedure" (previously named "codecision procedure"), which provides an equal
footing between Parliament and Council. In particular, under the
procedure, the Commission presents a proposal to Parliament and the
Council which can only become law if both agree on a text, which they do
(or not) through successive readings up to a maximum of three. In its
first reading, Parliament may send amendments to the Council which can
either adopt the text with those amendments or send back a "common
position". That position may either be approved by Parliament, or it may reject the text by an absolute majority, causing it to fail, or it may
adopt further amendments, also by an absolute majority. If the Council
does not approve these, then a "Conciliation Committee" is formed. The Committee is composed of the Council members plus an equal number of
MEPs who seek to agree a compromise. Once a position is agreed, it has
to be approved by Parliament, by a simple majority.[6][53] This is also
aided by Parliament's mandate as the only directly democratic
institution, which has given it leeway to have greater control over legislation than other institutions, for example over its changes to the Bolkestein directive in 2006.[34]"
On 09/03/2022 11:34, Wilf wrote:
At least people know the potential score under PR. They know that,
however problematical coalition governments may be, they at least get represented in parliament according to the proportion of their votes.
43.6% of voters voted for the Conservatives last time, yet they have an overall majority of 80 in the Commons (over 55% of MPs).
But under PR a small party that received few votes can hold virtually a
large party to ransom.
The fact still remains that the European parliament is not an executive organisation. It only approves that the legislation can be issued, it
does not have the authority to make the laws.
The facts still remain that nearly all of the legislation passing
through the UK Parliament is not created by MPs themselves but by the government ...
On 09/03/2022 20:10, Java Jive wrote:
The facts still remain that nearly all of the legislation passing
through the UK Parliament is not created by MPs themselves but by the
government ...
"Nearly all" leaves the balance as "Some is", a fact that you
continually try to mask.
MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 09/03/2022 11:34, Wilf wrote:
At least people know the potential score under PR. They know that,
however problematical coalition governments may be, they at least get
represented in parliament according to the proportion of their votes.
43.6% of voters voted for the Conservatives last time, yet they have an
overall majority of 80 in the Commons (over 55% of MPs).
But under PR a small party that received few votes can hold virtually a
large party to ransom.
The same holds under FPTP.
What price* the DUP during May's brief reign?
* Reportedly >£1bn
On 09/03/2022 11:34, Wilf wrote:
At least people know the potential score under PR. They know that,
however problematical coalition governments may be, they at least get
represented in parliament according to the proportion of their votes.
43.6% of voters voted for the Conservatives last time, yet they have an
overall majority of 80 in the Commons (over 55% of MPs).
But under PR a small party that received few votes can hold virtually a
large party to ransom.
On Wed 09/03/2022 14:24, MB wrote:
On 09/03/2022 11:34, Wilf wrote:
At least people know the potential score under PR. They know that,
however problematical coalition governments may be, they at least get
represented in parliament according to the proportion of their votes.
43.6% of voters voted for the Conservatives last time, yet they have an
overall majority of 80 in the Commons (over 55% of MPs).
But under PR a small party that received few votes can hold virtually a
large party to ransom.
Viz the Greens holding Merkel to ransom with the requirement to close
down all nuclear power generation - and look where that got them!
On 09/03/2022 20:40, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 09/03/2022 20:10, Java Jive wrote:
The facts still remain that nearly all of the legislation passing
through the UK Parliament is not created by MPs themselves but by the
government ...
"Nearly all" leaves the balance as "Some is", a fact that you
continually try to mask.
Wrt deciding which system is more democratic, it is not a significant
amount, a fact that you continually try to mask - for the years
between 1983 and 2019 they averaged just under 10pa, whereas government introduced bills for two of those years selected pseudo randomly, were
around 7k& 10k. Further, most of the Private Member's Bills that
succeed appear to originate in the less democratic chamber, the Lords.
Put all this against the fact that nearly all requests to the Commission which are carried by a majority in the European Parliament will result
in action by the Commission, and that in the UK the major political
parties frequently apply a three line whip to ensure their own MPs vote
as the leadership wishes, and the EU begins to look *MORE* democratic,
not less, than our own system.
After all, if you want a powerful government that only has to pass legislation put forward by a single party, a one party state is very strong!!!
On 09/03/2022 22:27, Wilf wrote:
After all, if you want a powerful government that only has to pass
legislation put forward by a single party, a one party state is very
strong!!!
We see the disadvantages of a one party state here in Scotland that uses
a form of PR. Very different to England.
On 10/03/2022 09:30, Wilf wrote:
On 10/03/2022 at 08:26, MB wrote:
After all, if you want a powerful government that only has to pass
legislation put forward by a single party, a one party state is very
strong!!!
We see the disadvantages of a one party state here in Scotland that uses >>> a form of PR. Very different to England.
Clearly, most people in Scotland don't see that as a disadvantage,
otherwise they would vote for other parties.
Just underlines my point that no system of democratic voting is in any
way perfect. Each has its own problems. Would FPTP in Scotland make any
difference?
No, as previously posted within the last 24 hours or so, the SNP would
have a landslide majority, so it's time MB stopped whingeing and
accepted democracy is often going to deliver results that he doesn't like.
On 10/03/2022 at 08:26, MB wrote:
After all, if you want a powerful government that only has to pass
legislation put forward by a single party, a one party state is very
strong!!!
We see the disadvantages of a one party state here in Scotland that uses
a form of PR. Very different to England.
Just underlines my point that no system of democratic voting is in any
way perfect. Each has its own problems. Would FPTP in Scotland make any difference?
Wrt deciding which system is more democratic, it is not a significant
amount, a fact that you continually try to mask - for the years
between 1983 and 2019 they averaged just under 10pa, whereas government
introduced bills for two of those years selected pseudo randomly, were
around 7k& 10k. Further, most of the Private Member's Bills that
succeed appear to originate in the less democratic chamber, the Lords.
Put all this against the fact that nearly all requests to the Commission
which are carried by a majority in the European Parliament will result
in action by the Commission, and that in the UK the major political
parties frequently apply a three line whip to ensure their own MPs vote
as the leadership wishes, and the EU begins to look *MORE* democratic,
not less, than our own system.
You are entitled to your opinion, even if it is wrong.
The fact remains
that the executive function in the EU is never performed by the people elected by the voters. The fact that the lobbyists are mostly successful doesn't change that.
On 08/03/2022 14:26, Robin wrote:
On 08/03/2022 12:28, Java Jive wrote:
On 08/03/2022 10:52, MB wrote:
On 08/03/2022 10:38, Wilf wrote:
Ugh. How can he be in Europe! Except maybe to stir up trouble that's >>>>> none of his business.
+1
Do you now have to swear allegiance to the EU to visit "Europe"?
Yes, when you've built your political career on lying about how awful
it is, despite it being where your ancestors came from.
It's public knowledge that 2 of his great-great-grandparents came from
Germany but what's your source for the rest of his ancestry?
Doubtless you can read Wikipedia as well as me. His is clearly not an English name, and has been suggested to be French Huguenot in origin,
but even if it's just the two great-great-grandparents, that still makes
his lying about Europe somewhat hypocritical, don't you think?
On 08/03/2022 at 14:12, Andy Burns wrote:
Wilf wrote:
MB wrote:
Do you now have to swear allegiance to the EU to visit "Europe"?
No, but he always claimed what an awful disgusting place it was.
I don't remember him disparaging European countries or people, only
the EU institutions ...
Whatever.
On 08/03/2022 20:59, Robin wrote:
On 08/03/2022 17:12, Java Jive wrote:
Doubtless you can read Wikipedia as well as me. His is clearly not
an English name, and has been suggested to be French Huguenot in
origin, but even if it's just the two great-great-grandparents, that
still makes his lying about Europe somewhat hypocritical, don't you
think?
You made a a plain statement of fact as to his ancestors which you
cannot now back up.
Nonsense, you yourself have admitted them to exist:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Farage#Ancestry_and_childhood
The possible Huguenot origin of the name is irrelevant. It should be
obvious to the meanest intellect that a surname may be inherited from
a person who makes up a tiny fraction of his ancestry from 300 years ago.
A *minimum* of 2 x great great grandparents is 2 / 2^4 which is 1/8, not
a tiny fraction of his ancestry.
And no, I don't agree that it's OK for you to lie about someone just
because you don't like his views.
I didn't lie, as you yourself admitted up thread.
(Also, while I am no fan of his, like others that I recall him
slagging of EU institutions, leaders and officials but not countries
or peoples or the whole continent.)
The EU is part of Europe, so in lying about the EU, he is inevitably
lying about Europe as well.
But I do hate hypocrisy.
Don't look in a mirror then.
On 09/03/2022 at 14:51, Woody wrote:
On Wed 09/03/2022 14:24, MB wrote:
On 09/03/2022 11:34, Wilf wrote:
At least people know the potential score under PR. They know that,
however problematical coalition governments may be, they at least get
represented in parliament according to the proportion of their votes.
43.6% of voters voted for the Conservatives last time, yet they have an >>>> overall majority of 80 in the Commons (over 55% of MPs).
But under PR a small party that received few votes can hold virtually a
large party to ransom.
Viz the Greens holding Merkel to ransom with the requirement to close
down all nuclear power generation - and look where that got them!
Hindsight is great, though. And I still say that that is preferable to
a party in the UK getting 45% of the vote but ending up with a massive
and unassailable majority in parliament.
After all, if you want a powerful government that only has to pass legislation put forward by a single party, a one party state is very strong!!!
On 08/03/2022 at 10:52, MB wrote:
On 08/03/2022 10:38, Wilf wrote:
Ugh. How can he be in Europe! Except maybe to stir up trouble that's >>> none of his business.
Do you now have to swear allegiance to the EU to visit "Europe"?
No, but he always claimed what an awful disgusting place it was.
On 09/03/2022 23:31, Indy Jess John wrote:
Wrt deciding which system is more democratic, it is not a significant
amount, a fact that you continually try to mask - for the years
between 1983 and 2019 they averaged just under 10pa, whereas government
introduced bills for two of those years selected pseudo randomly, were
around 7k& 10k. Further, most of the Private Member's Bills that
succeed appear to originate in the less democratic chamber, the Lords.
Put all this against the fact that nearly all requests to the Commission >>> which are carried by a majority in the European Parliament will result
in action by the Commission, and that in the UK the major political
parties frequently apply a three line whip to ensure their own MPs vote
as the leadership wishes, and the EU begins to look *MORE* democratic,
not less, than our own system.
You are entitled to your opinion, even if it is wrong.
My opinion is based on facts, not bigotry.
The fact remains
that the executive function in the EU is never performed by the people
elected by the voters. The fact that the lobbyists are mostly successful
doesn't change that.
The facts outlined above speak for themselves. The democratically
elected MEPs have as at least as much, arguably more, influence on EU
policy
On 08/03/2022 02:00 pm, Wilf wrote:
On 08/03/2022 at 10:52, MB wrote:
On 08/03/2022 10:38, Wilf wrote:
Ugh. How can he be in Europe! Except maybe to stir up trouble that's >>>> none of his business.
Do you now have to swear allegiance to the EU to visit "Europe"?
No, but he always claimed what an awful disgusting place it was.
Are you sure he wasn't simply saying that the European Union was an
awful system of government?
On 08/03/2022 09:52 pm, Java Jive wrote:
On 08/03/2022 20:59, Robin wrote:
The possible Huguenot origin of the name is irrelevant. It should be
obvious to the meanest intellect that a surname may be inherited from
a person who makes up a tiny fraction of his ancestry from 300 years
ago.
A *minimum* of 2 x great great grandparents is 2 / 2^4 which is 1/8,
not a tiny fraction of his ancestry.
Usually, only one of them would have brought the surname to the table,
so it's 1/16th.
[Yes, I suppose that it's possible for two unrelated Smiths or Joneses
to meet and marry, though I suggest that the likelihood falls away
somewhat for unrelated Farages or Jives.]
And no, I don't agree that it's OK for you to lie about someone just
because you don't like his views.
I didn't lie, as you yourself admitted up thread.
You're *still* using that tactic, are you?
(Also, while I am no fan of his, like others that I recall him
slagging of EU institutions, leaders and officials but not countries
or peoples or the whole continent.)
The EU is part of Europe, so in lying about the EU, he is inevitably
lying about Europe as well.
But I do hate hypocrisy.
Don't look in a mirror then.
Is that the playtime bell ringing for you to get back into the classroom?
On 08/03/2022 05:12 pm, Java Jive wrote:
Doubtless you can read Wikipedia as well as me. His is clearly not an
English name, and has been suggested to be French Huguenot in origin,
but even if it's just the two great-great-grandparents, that still
makes his lying about Europe somewhat hypocritical, don't you think?
What "lies" do you mean?
His position on the EU can be boiled down to: "I prefer to live in a
country - the United Kingdom - which is not run by or subject to foreign politicians and I invite you to take the same view".
a large number of people - as was
demonstrated back in 2016 - took the same sort of view.
On 10/03/2022 10:32, Java Jive wrote:
On 09/03/2022 23:31, Indy Jess John wrote:
Wrt deciding which system is more democratic, it is not a significant
amount, a fact that you continually try to mask - for the years
between 1983 and 2019 they averaged just under 10pa, whereas government >>>> introduced bills for two of those years selected pseudo randomly, were >>>> around 7k& 10k. Further, most of the Private Member's Bills that >>>> succeed appear to originate in the less democratic chamber, the Lords. >>>> Put all this against the fact that nearly all requests to the
Commission
which are carried by a majority in the European Parliament will result >>>> in action by the Commission, and that in the UK the major political
parties frequently apply a three line whip to ensure their own MPs vote >>>> as the leadership wishes, and the EU begins to look *MORE* democratic, >>>> not less, than our own system.
You are entitled to your opinion, even if it is wrong.
My opinion is based on facts, not bigotry.
The fact remains
that the executive function in the EU is never performed by the people
elected by the voters. The fact that the lobbyists are mostly successful >>> doesn't change that.
The facts outlined above speak for themselves. The democratically
elected MEPs have as at least as much, arguably more, influence on EU
policy
My point entirely - they are elected lobbyists not an executive body.
Perhaps now that you have stated that yourself, you might start to think
it might actually be true.
On 10/03/2022 14:32, JNugent wrote:
On 08/03/2022 05:12 pm, Java Jive wrote:
Doubtless you can read Wikipedia as well as me. His is clearly not
an English name, and has been suggested to be French Huguenot in
origin, but even if it's just the two great-great-grandparents, that
still makes his lying about Europe somewhat hypocritical, don't you
think?
What "lies" do you mean?
His position on the EU can be boiled down to: "I prefer to live in a
country - the United Kingdom - which is not run by or subject to
foreign politicians and I invite you to take the same view".
Do you really, seriously think that Farage doesn't lie, and hasn't been
doing so about the EU for decades?
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/seb-dance/nigel-farage-seb-dance_b_14591852.html
Lies 3 to 5.
Nigel Farage says Ukraine invasion is result of EU and Nato provoking Putin https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nigel-farage-ukraine-russia-eu-b2022400.html
Oh, so the attack on Ukraine is *our* fault now, is it???!!!
Java Jive wrote:
Nigel Farage says Ukraine invasion is result of EU and Nato provoking
Putin
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nigel-farage-ukraine-russia-eu-b2022400.html
Oh, so the attack on Ukraine is *our* fault now, is it???!!!
From Putin's PoV, yes the B9/V4 countries having "encroached" on Russia together with Ukraine pondering EU membership and trying to force "anti-Russian" changes in the Donbas region back in 2014 is the long drawn-out reason *as* *he* *sees* *it*
it doesn't justify invading though.
Surely, you don't think anything in that part of the world is black and white?
Andy Burns wrote:
From Putin's PoV, yes the B9/V4 countries having "encroached" on Russia
together with Ukraine pondering EU membership and trying to force
"anti-Russian" changes in the Donbas region back in 2014 is the long drawn-out
reason *as* *he* *sees* *it*
But that doesn't mean that Putin's PoV is in fact correct or even rational.
No indeed, it's like Hitler's invasion of Czechoslovakia or Poland, and similarly may yet lead to an escalating conflict.
He never distinguished the EU from "Europe".
On 10/03/2022 14:40, JNugent wrote:
On 08/03/2022 09:52 pm, Java Jive wrote:
On 08/03/2022 20:59, Robin wrote:
The possible Huguenot origin of the name is irrelevant. It should be
obvious to the meanest intellect that a surname may be inherited
from a person who makes up a tiny fraction of his ancestry from 300
years ago.
A *minimum* of 2 x great great grandparents is 2 / 2^4 which is 1/8,
not a tiny fraction of his ancestry.
Usually, only one of them would have brought the surname to the table,
so it's 1/16th.
[Yes, I suppose that it's possible for two unrelated Smiths or Joneses
to meet and marry, though I suggest that the likelihood falls away
somewhat for unrelated Farages or Jives.]
How typical that you come late into the argument spouting rubbish
because you didn't bother to look up the facts, viz: that he has *two*
German ancestors, not one.
And no, I don't agree that it's OK for you to lie about someone just
because you don't like his views.
I didn't lie, as you yourself admitted up thread.
You're *still* using that tactic, are you?
You're *still* using that tactic, are you?
(Also, while I am no fan of his, like others that I recall him
slagging of EU institutions, leaders and officials but not countries
or peoples or the whole continent.)
The EU is part of Europe, so in lying about the EU, he is inevitably
lying about Europe as well.
But I do hate hypocrisy.
Don't look in a mirror then.
Is that the playtime bell ringing for you to get back into the classroom?
No, it's for you.
On 10/03/2022 at 14:28, JNugent wrote:
On 08/03/2022 02:00 pm, Wilf wrote:
On 08/03/2022 at 10:52, MB wrote:
On 08/03/2022 10:38, Wilf wrote:
Ugh. How can he be in Europe! Except maybe to stir up trouble that's >>>>> none of his business.
Do you now have to swear allegiance to the EU to visit "Europe"?
No, but he always claimed what an awful disgusting place it was.
Are you sure he wasn't simply saying that the European Union was an
awful system of government?
He never distinguished the EU from "Europe".
On 10/03/2022 16:19, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 10/03/2022 10:32, Java Jive wrote:
On 09/03/2022 23:31, Indy Jess John wrote:
Wrt deciding which system is more democratic, it is not a significant >>>>> amount, a fact that you continually try to mask - for the years
between 1983 and 2019 they averaged just under 10pa, whereas government >>>>> introduced bills for two of those years selected pseudo randomly, were >>>>> around 7k& 10k. Further, most of the Private Member's Bills that >>>>> succeed appear to originate in the less democratic chamber, the Lords. >>>>> Put all this against the fact that nearly all requests to the
Commission
which are carried by a majority in the European Parliament will result >>>>> in action by the Commission, and that in the UK the major political
parties frequently apply a three line whip to ensure their own MPs vote >>>>> as the leadership wishes, and the EU begins to look *MORE* democratic, >>>>> not less, than our own system.
You are entitled to your opinion, even if it is wrong.
My opinion is based on facts, not bigotry.
The fact remains
that the executive function in the EU is never performed by the people >>>> elected by the voters. The fact that the lobbyists are mostly successful >>>> doesn't change that.
The facts outlined above speak for themselves. The democratically
elected MEPs have as at least as much, arguably more, influence on EU
policy
My point entirely - they are elected lobbyists not an executive body.
Perhaps now that you have stated that yourself, you might start to think
it might actually be true.
I never stated that they are elected lobbyists, that is your fiction and yours alone.
On 10/03/2022 14:32, JNugent wrote:
On 08/03/2022 05:12 pm, Java Jive wrote:
Doubtless you can read Wikipedia as well as me. His is clearly not
an English name, and has been suggested to be French Huguenot in
origin, but even if it's just the two great-great-grandparents, that
still makes his lying about Europe somewhat hypocritical, don't you
think?
What "lies" do you mean?
His position on the EU can be boiled down to: "I prefer to live in a
country - the United Kingdom - which is not run by or subject to
foreign politicians and I invite you to take the same view".
Do you really, seriously think that Farage doesn't lie, and hasn't been
doing so about the EU for decades?
On 10/03/2022 16:45, Wilf wrote:
He never distinguished the EU from "Europe".
This is simply untrue.
On 10/03/2022 07:45 pm, Java Jive wrote:
[Some uncomfortable facts about Farage's many lies]
Talking to yourself again?
You said "The democratically elected MEPs have as at least as much,
arguably more, influence on EU policy", so they are influencers (ie lobbyists) not an executive body. And MEPs are elected, so they are
elected lobbyists. Don't pretend you or I said anything different.
On 10/03/2022 07:34 pm, Java Jive wrote:
How typical that you come late into the argument spouting rubbish
because you didn't bother to look up the facts, viz: that he has *two*
German ancestors, not one.
And did BOTH of those great great grandparents have the name "Farage"
even before they married, which is what they'd need to have had to
reduce the numbers to 1/8th instead of 1/16th?
You're *still* using that tactic, are you?
You're *still* using that tactic, are you?
Pathetic.
Is that the playtime bell ringing for you to get back into the
classroom?
No, it's for you.
Doubly pathetic.
On 10/03/2022 07:42 pm, Java Jive wrote:
On 10/03/2022 14:32, JNugent wrote:
On 08/03/2022 05:12 pm, Java Jive wrote:
Doubtless you can read Wikipedia as well as me. His is clearly not
an English name, and has been suggested to be French Huguenot in
origin, but even if it's just the two great-great-grandparents, that
still makes his lying about Europe somewhat hypocritical, don't you
think?
What "lies" do you mean?
[snip JJ's irrelevant rant]
There are no lies in that.
On 10/03/2022 23:08, williamwright wrote:
On 10/03/2022 16:45, Wilf wrote:
He never distinguished the EU from "Europe".
This is simply untrue.
And how, in his latest lie that we in the West are the cause of Putin invading
do you suppose that he is not criticising the EU and
NATO and the West generally, but strangely not Europe?
On 10/03/2022 23:19, Indy Jess John wrote:
You said "The democratically elected MEPs have as at least as much,
arguably more, influence on EU policy", so they are influencers (ie
lobbyists) not an executive body. And MEPs are elected, so they are
elected lobbyists. Don't pretend you or I said anything different.
MEPs are not lobbyists any more than are our own MPs, that is your fiction/untruth/lie.
This is simply untrue.
Bill
Our own MPs vote on proposed legislation and when there is a majority in favour the words "The ayes have it", that conclusion becomes law.
On 11/03/2022 07:36, Indy Jess John wrote:
Our own MPs vote on proposed legislation and when there is a majority in
favour the words "The ayes have it", that conclusion becomes law.
Most legislation comes from the government but there are ways that a
humble MP can get a piece of legislation passed into law.
The EU
"Parliament" seems to require legislation to come from Politburo
but
like the majority of people I pay little attention to them, as I did
also when we were ruled by them.
On 11/03/2022 00:46, Java Jive wrote:
MEPs are not lobbyists any more than are our own MPs, that is your
fiction/untruth/lie.
Our own MPs vote on proposed legislation and when there is a majority in favour the words "The ayes have it", that conclusion becomes law.
So it is your words "MEPs are not lobbyists any more than are our own
MPs" above and not my explanation, which is the lie.
As I said (and you trimmed) I do feel so sorry for you, being unable to understand simple logic. It makes you obsessive.
On 11/03/2022 00:10, JNugent wrote:
On 10/03/2022 07:34 pm, Java Jive wrote:
How typical that you come late into the argument spouting rubbish
because you didn't bother to look up the facts, viz: that he has
*two* German ancestors, not one.
And did BOTH of those great great grandparents have the name "Farage"
even before they married, which is what they'd need to have had to
reduce the numbers to 1/8th instead of 1/16th?
Again, you come in late upon the argument spouting bullshit. The
argument is not about what proportion of his ancestors carried the name Farage, it's about what proportion of his ancestors came from across the Channel.
You're *still* using that tactic, are you?
You're *still* using that tactic, are you?
Pathetic.
If you think it's so pathetic, why did you start it?
Is that the playtime bell ringing for you to get back into the
classroom?
No, it's for you.
Doubly pathetic.
Again, if you think it's so pathetic, why did you start it?
On 11/03/2022 00:13, JNugent wrote:
On 10/03/2022 07:42 pm, Java Jive wrote:
On 10/03/2022 14:32, JNugent wrote:
On 08/03/2022 05:12 pm, Java Jive wrote:
Doubtless you can read Wikipedia as well as me. His is clearly not >>>>> an English name, and has been suggested to be French Huguenot in
origin, but even if it's just the two great-great-grandparents,
that still makes his lying about Europe somewhat hypocritical,
don't you think?
What "lies" do you mean?
[snip JJ's irrelevant rant]
I was answering the question still quoted immediately above, viz: 'What "lies" do you mean?' by listing just a few of the many lies that Farage
has told. It's only now suddenly 'irrelevant' because otherwise you'd
have to admit to being proved wrong in argument (yet again), though why
you should have such difficulty with this is beyond anyone's
comprehension, because you've had so much chance to practice!
There are no lies in that.
It wasn't what was being discussed, what was being discussed was
Farage's many lies.
On 08/03/2022 17:12, Java Jive wrote:SNIP
The possible Huguenot origin of the name is irrelevant. It should be
obvious to the meanest intellect that a surname may be inherited from a person who makes up a tiny fraction of his ancestry from 300 years ago.
But I do hate hypocrisy.
--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid
On 11/03/2022 07:36, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 11/03/2022 00:46, Java Jive wrote:
MEPs are not lobbyists any more than are our own MPs, that is your
fiction/untruth/lie.
Our own MPs vote on proposed legislation and when there is a majority in
favour the words "The ayes have it", that conclusion becomes law.
<Sigh!> *Exactly* as happens in the European Parliament!
So it is your words "MEPs are not lobbyists any more than are our own
MPs" above and not my explanation, which is the lie.
Although IMO it's not an appropriate word, logically, if MEPs are
lobbyists, so are MPs.
As I said (and you trimmed) I do feel so sorry for you, being unable to
understand simple logic. It makes you obsessive.
You've been looking in a mirror again, I'm not the one denying simple
facts here.
On Tuesday, 8 March 2022 at 20:59:35 UTC, Robin wrote:
On 08/03/2022 17:12, Java Jive wrote:
But I do hate hypocrisy.
So why practise it?
On 11/03/2022 12:55 am, Java Jive wrote:
On 11/03/2022 00:10, JNugent wrote:
On 10/03/2022 07:34 pm, Java Jive wrote:
How typical that you come late into the argument spouting rubbish
because you didn't bother to look up the facts, viz: that he has
*two* German ancestors, not one.
And did BOTH of those great great grandparents have the name "Farage"
even before they married, which is what they'd need to have had to
reduce the numbers to 1/8th instead of 1/16th?
Again, you come in late upon the argument spouting bullshit. The
argument is not about what proportion of his ancestors carried the
name Farage, it's about what proportion of his ancestors came from
across the Channel.
You're *still* using that tactic, are you?
You're *still* using that tactic, are you?
Pathetic.
If you think it's so pathetic, why did you start it?
Eh?
It was your good self who "thought" that repeating what has just been
said was "witty".
And it was pathetic.
Is that the playtime bell ringing for you to get back into the
classroom?
No, it's for you.
Doubly pathetic.
Again, if you think it's so pathetic, why did you start it?
You're not very good at this, are you? ;-)
On 11/03/2022 12:36, Java Jive wrote:
On 11/03/2022 07:36, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 11/03/2022 00:46, Java Jive wrote:
MEPs are not lobbyists any more than are our own MPs, that is your
fiction/untruth/lie.
Our own MPs vote on proposed legislation and when there is a majority
in favour the words "The ayes have it", that conclusion becomes law.
<Sigh!> *Exactly* as happens in the European Parliament!
Not so. EU legislation becomes law when the Commission issues it, not
when the MEPs approve it.
As I said (and you trimmed) I do feel so sorry for you, being unable
to understand simple logic. It makes you obsessive.
You've been looking in a mirror again, I'm not the one denying simple
facts here.
You are. A minority of one from my reading of this thread.
On 11/03/2022 12:36, Java Jive wrote:
On 11/03/2022 07:36, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 11/03/2022 00:46, Java Jive wrote:
MEPs are not lobbyists any more than are our own MPs, that is your
fiction/untruth/lie.
Our own MPs vote on proposed legislation and when there is a majority in >>> favour the words "The ayes have it", that conclusion becomes law.
<Sigh!> *Exactly* as happens in the European Parliament!
Not so. EU legislation becomes law when the Commission issues it, not
when the MEPs approve it.
So it is your words "MEPs are not lobbyists any more than are our own
MPs" above and not my explanation, which is the lie.
Although IMO it's not an appropriate word, logically, if MEPs are
lobbyists, so are MPs.
Not so. UK MPs are an executive body. MEPs are not.
You are. A minority of one from my reading of this thread.
On 11/03/2022 16:25, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 11/03/2022 12:36, Java Jive wrote:
On 11/03/2022 07:36, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 11/03/2022 00:46, Java Jive wrote:
MEPs are not lobbyists any more than are our own MPs, that is your
fiction/untruth/lie.
Our own MPs vote on proposed legislation and when there is a
majority in
favour the words "The ayes have it", that conclusion becomes law.
<Sigh!> *Exactly* as happens in the European Parliament!
Not so. EU legislation becomes law when the Commission issues it, not
when the MEPs approve it.
Show me the quote verifying that. As already linked, EU legislation
cannot become law without being approved by the European Parliament.
So it is your words "MEPs are not lobbyists any more than are our own
MPs" above and not my explanation, which is the lie.
Although IMO it's not an appropriate word, logically, if MEPs are
lobbyists, so are MPs.
Not so. UK MPs are an executive body. MEPs are not.
FALSE! Neither are an executive body, government is the executive body
in the UK, the Commission in the EU:
https://www.politicalsciencenotes.com/articles/meaning-types-and-functions-of-the-executive-organ-of-the-government/344
"But today the monarchy has been abolished to a great extent and
democracy has taken its place. Thus the executive has no power to make
laws, to implement them and to punish those who violate the laws. The
laws are now made by the legislature; the executive implements them and
the judiciary awards punishments for the violation of the laws."
And, as explained countless times, this is the same with the EU, there
is no practical difference that matters between the two. Neither
parliament drafts the vast majority of legislation, both can amend
proposed legislation as drafted by others, both can fail to pass
legislation, which then fails absolutely, and neither implement the legislation, which is done by the respective executive branches of government, so I repeat, although IMO it's an inappropriate term, if
MEPs are to be called 'lobbyists', then logically you must apply the
same word to MPs.
You are. A minority of one from my reading of this thread.
You're the only one still arguing against me - that might be because I have convinced some of the others of the simple truth, viz: that most of
the criticisms of the EU are based on Europhobic lies and
disinformation, or simply that others have lost interest but remain unconvinced. Be that as it may, I can only argue with the man in front
of me, and that's you, because, despite having plenty of opportunity to practice, you're just too damned stubborn accept simple facts that
demolish your arguments.
In article <t0ft5i$o0m$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
On 11/03/2022 12:36, Java Jive wrote:
On 11/03/2022 07:36, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 11/03/2022 00:46, Java Jive wrote:
MEPs are not lobbyists any more than are our own MPs, that is your
fiction/untruth/lie.
Our own MPs vote on proposed legislation and when there is a majority
in favour the words "The ayes have it", that conclusion becomes law.
<Sigh!> *Exactly* as happens in the European Parliament!
Not so. EU legislation becomes law when the Commission issues it, not
when the MEPs approve it.
UK legislation can become Law when it gets Royal Assent IIRC. However UK Government also has many powers to issue what is de facto 'law' under the guise of 'regulations', etc, without having to go via Parliament.
OTOH A lot of the EU policies are in reality decided by the "Council of Ministers" (I think that's the term) which means the heads of the National Goverments who get together in a room and agree between them. This then
feeds into EU regulations/Law.
So it isn't a simple matter to decide which - UK or EU - is most/least 'democratic'.
On 11/03/2022 16:25, Indy Jess John wrote:As so often, reality is not so simple. The Commission can be - and has
On 11/03/2022 12:36, Java Jive wrote:
On 11/03/2022 07:36, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 11/03/2022 00:46, Java Jive wrote:
MEPs are not lobbyists any more than are our own MPs, that is your
fiction/untruth/lie.
Our own MPs vote on proposed legislation and when there is a
majority in
favour the words "The ayes have it", that conclusion becomes law.
<Sigh!> *Exactly* as happens in the European Parliament!
Not so. EU legislation becomes law when the Commission issues it, not
when the MEPs approve it.
Show me the quote verifying that. As already linked, EU legislation
cannot become law without being approved by the European Parliament.
So it is your words "MEPs are not lobbyists any more than are our own
MPs" above and not my explanation, which is the lie.
Although IMO it's not an appropriate word, logically, if MEPs are
lobbyists, so are MPs.
Not so. UK MPs are an executive body. MEPs are not.
FALSE! Neither are an executive body, government is the executive body
in the UK, the Commission in the EU:
https://www.politicalsciencenotes.com/articles/meaning-types-and-functions-of-the-executive-organ-of-the-government/344
"But today the monarchy has been abolished to a great extent and
democracy has taken its place. Thus the executive has no power to make
laws, to implement them and to punish those who violate the laws. The
laws are now made by the legislature; the executive implements them and
the judiciary awards punishments for the violation of the laws."
And, as explained countless times, this is the same with the EU, there
is no practical difference that matters between the two. Neither
parliament drafts the vast majority of legislation, both can amend
proposed legislation as drafted by others, both can fail to pass
legislation, which then fails absolutely, and neither implement the legislation, which is done by the respective executive branches of government, so I repeat, although IMO it's an inappropriate term, if
MEPs are to be called 'lobbyists', then logically you must apply the
same word to MPs.
You are. A minority of one from my reading of this thread.
You're the only one still arguing against me - that might be because I have convinced some of the others of the simple truth, viz: that most of
the criticisms of the EU are based on Europhobic lies and
disinformation, or simply that others have lost interest but remain unconvinced. Be that as it may, I can only argue with the man in front
of me, and that's you, because, despite having plenty of opportunity to practice, you're just too damned stubborn accept simple facts that
demolish your arguments.
On 12/03/2022 16:09, Java Jive wrote:
On 11/03/2022 16:25, Indy Jess John wrote:
Not so. EU legislation becomes law when the Commission issues it,
not when the MEPs approve it.
Show me the quote verifying that. As already linked, EU legislation
cannot become law without being approved by the European Parliament.
As so often, reality is not so simple. The Commission can be - and has
been - given powers similar to the powers to make delegated acts (which
are /not/ the same as regulations under Acts of the Westminster but
/are/ similarly not primary legislation under the Parliament's
"ordinary" procedure). And can come into force without Parliamentary approval.
Founding provision is now Article 290 TFEU
<https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:12008E290:en:HTML>
in plain words
<https://eur-lex.europa.eu/summary/glossary/delegated_acts.html>
and recently reviewed by
<https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12027-020-00646-2>
On 11/03/2022 12:36, Java Jive wrote:
On 11/03/2022 07:36, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 11/03/2022 00:46, Java Jive wrote:
MEPs are not lobbyists any more than are our own MPs, that is your
fiction/untruth/lie.
Our own MPs vote on proposed legislation and when there is a majority in >> favour the words "The ayes have it", that conclusion becomes law.
<Sigh!> *Exactly* as happens in the European Parliament!Not so. EU legislation becomes law when the Commission issues it, not
when the MEPs approve it.
So it is your words "MEPs are not lobbyists any more than are our own
MPs" above and not my explanation, which is the lie.
Although IMO it's not an appropriate word, logically, if MEPs are lobbyists, so are MPs.Not so. UK MPs are an executive body. MEPs are not.
As I said (and you trimmed) I do feel so sorry for you, being unable to >> understand simple logic. It makes you obsessive.
You've been looking in a mirror again, I'm not the one denying simple facts here.
You are. A minority of one from my reading of this thread.
On 11/03/2022 14:17, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
On Tuesday, 8 March 2022 at 20:59:35 UTC, Robin wrote:<snip>
On 08/03/2022 17:12, Java Jive wrote:
But I do hate hypocrisy.
So why practise it?
Where did I do so?
--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid
And the democratic deficits in both are much debated by politicians,
lawyers and academics et al - mostly without recourse to "ad hominem"
insults and "ex cathedra" claims; and often even with factual evidence
(e.g. voting turnouts, propensity of MEPs to vote with their national
party line or their EU Parliament ary group).
Farage on GB News. The sounds from all the remote interviews was fine,
but from the studio it was terrible. It was badly out of sync, there was distortion on peaks, no top, too much bottom, and an odd room resonance.
At the start of Part 2, for just a few seconds there was good sound, in
sync, but with the bad sound on top of it and louder, and a second or so behind.
I refuse to watch a TV station that employs the stinking turd in humanoid form
know as "Farage".
I refuse to watch a TV station that employs the stinking turd in
humanoid form know as "Farage".
On 08/03/2022 00:48, williamwright wrote:
Farage on GB News. The sounds from all the remote interviews was fine,
but from the studio it was terrible. It was badly out of sync, there was >>distortion on peaks, no top, too much bottom, and an odd room resonance.
At the start of Part 2, for just a few seconds there was good sound, in >>sync, but with the bad sound on top of it and louder, and a second or so >>behind.
I refuse to watch a TV station that employs the stinking turd in humanoid >form know as "Farage".
I refuse to watch a TV station that employs the stinking turd in
humanoid form know as "Farage".
On 04/06/2022 in message <jfvv73F711eU1@mid.individual.net> Brian Gregory >wrote:
On 08/03/2022 00:48, williamwright wrote:
Farage on GB News. The sounds from all the remote interviews was fine, >>>but from the studio it was terrible. It was badly out of sync, there was >>>distortion on peaks, no top, too much bottom, and an odd room resonance. >>>At the start of Part 2, for just a few seconds there was good sound, in >>>sync, but with the bad sound on top of it and louder, and a second or so >>>behind.
I refuse to watch a TV station that employs the stinking turd in humanoid >>form know as "Farage".
We owe him an enormous debt, I'm pretty sure that without him we would
still be stuck in the EU.
On 4 Jun 2022 09:09:07 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On 04/06/2022 in message <jfvv73F711eU1@mid.individual.net> Brian Gregory
wrote:
On 08/03/2022 00:48, williamwright wrote:
Farage on GB News. The sounds from all the remote interviews was fine, >>>> but from the studio it was terrible. It was badly out of sync, there was >>>> distortion on peaks, no top, too much bottom, and an odd room resonance. >>>> At the start of Part 2, for just a few seconds there was good sound, in >>>> sync, but with the bad sound on top of it and louder, and a second or so >>>> behind.
I refuse to watch a TV station that employs the stinking turd in humanoid >>> form know as "Farage".
We owe him an enormous debt, I'm pretty sure that without him we would
still be stuck in the EU.
So it was him and not Boris who destroyed the UK economy?
On 04/06/2022 in message <jfvv73F711eU1@mid.individual.net> Brian
Gregory wrote:
I refuse to watch a TV station that employs the stinking turd in
humanoid form know as "Farage".
We owe him an enormous debt, I'm pretty sure that without him we would
still be stuck in the EU.
I refuse to watch a TV station that employs the stinking turd in humanoid >>>form know as "Farage".
We owe him an enormous debt, I'm pretty sure that without him we would >>still be stuck in the EU.
So it was him and not Boris who destroyed the UK economy?
So it was him and not Boris who destroyed the UK economy?
I refuse to watch a TV station that employs the stinking turd in
humanoid form know as "Farage".
We owe him an enormous debt, I'm pretty sure that without him we would
still be stuck in the EU.
I refuse to watch a TV station that employs the stinking turd in
humanoid form know as "Farage".
On 04/06/2022 03:43, Brian Gregory wrote:
I refuse to watch a TV station that employs the stinking turd in
humanoid form know as "Farage".
There cannot be many radio or TV stations that he has not appeared on so
it is going to be quiet time for you.
On 04/06/2022 03:43, Brian Gregory wrote:
I refuse to watch a TV station that employs the stinking turd inYou sound a bit bonkers.
humanoid form know as "Farage".
Bill
On 04/06/2022 in message <v39m9hldc43du6dckj95r6gn3bg3aepcvs@4ax.com>
Martin wrote:
I refuse to watch a TV station that employs the stinking turd in
humanoid
form know as "Farage".
We owe him an enormous debt, I'm pretty sure that without him we would
still be stuck in the EU.
So it was him and not Boris who destroyed the UK economy?
Garbage. There are many outside factors affecting the economy and we are
now free to take our own action to deal with them.
Did you know that the number of unemployed is now about equal to the
number of job vacancies? Time for the unemployed to get on their bikes.
In article <v39m9hldc43du6dckj95r6gn3bg3aepcvs@4ax.com>,
Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:
So it was him and not Boris who destroyed the UK economy?
The economy was destroyed by:
1. A socialist government calling itself Conservative, that spent
enormous sums of money it didn't have.
2. Shutting down the economy for two years. Predicted as 'inevitable'
at the time.
3. An absurd energy policy.
But by all means ignore reality and blame Brexit.
So it was him and not Boris who destroyed the UK economy?
Garbage. There are many outside factors affecting the economy and we are
now free to take our own action to deal with them.
Did you know that the number of unemployed is now about equal to the
number of job vacancies? Time for the unemployed to get on their bikes.
In article <xn0nips719xaos900h@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines ><jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
So it was him and not Boris who destroyed the UK economy?
Garbage. There are many outside factors affecting the economy and we are >>now free to take our own action to deal with them.
Erm... Well when it comes to factors like trade our 'freedom' has to also >deal with the other countries having their own 'freedom' to require
different conditions of trade to us. e.g. - the USA's wish to extend patent >cash income for drugs sold to the NHS by their big pharma lobby, thus
hiking the costs of care in the UK. You may have noticed that the USA is >bigger than the UK, so it may be a challenge for us to fulfill our
'freedom' to refuse this while getting the level of trade we want.
Did you know that the number of unemployed is now about equal to the
number of job vacancies? Time for the unemployed to get on their bikes.
Did you know that sometimes people spout simplistic arguments that omit >relevant details? :-)
For example, how may of your (unstated) number of "unemployed" live so far >from a job that the wage they'd be paid for it would mean they'd be in >poverty because of the travel costs, and they aren't fit enough to go that >far on a bike? (Alas, they have no bus service since the days when the
Tories 'privatised' the regulation of bus provision outwith London. And
they can't afford to live in the bigger towns where they jobs are.)
How many would need some training that the vacancy requires, but which the >employer won't pay anyone to gain?
How many of them are actually 24/7 carers for a close family member in the >same home?
How many of those vacancies pay a decent wage and provide decent
conditions, etc?
etc.
We owe him an enormous debt, I'm pretty sure that without him we would >>>>still be stuck in the EU.
So it was him and not Boris who destroyed the UK economy?
Garbage. There are many outside factors affecting the economy and we are >>now free to take our own action to deal with them.
Name an action that we are taking now that we couldn't have taken before.
Did you know that the number of unemployed is now about equal to the
number of job vacancies? Time for the unemployed to get on their bikes.
I don't suppose that many of them can afford one.
However, "appearing" isn't a synonym for "employs".
You sound a bit bonkers.
Bill
As do you sometimes
On 04/06/2022 15:00, Brian Gregory wrote:
You sound a bit bonkers.
Bill
As do you sometimes
Yes but I'm certified so I can.
Bill
On 04/06/2022 in message <t7ftts$bag$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
We owe him an enormous debt, I'm pretty sure that without him we would >>>>> still be stuck in the EU.
So it was him and not Boris who destroyed the UK economy?
Garbage. There are many outside factors affecting the economy and we
are now free to take our own action to deal with them.
Name an action that we are taking now that we couldn't have taken before.
Do your own research, there are daily reports of things we have been
able to do now we are independent.
Did you know that the number of unemployed is now about equal to the
number of job vacancies? Time for the unemployed to get on their bikes.
I don't suppose that many of them can afford one.
Then they will have to carry on sitting on their backsides and
scrounging off the rest of us.
On 04/06/2022 in message <59f34d8606noise@audiomisc.co.uk> Jim Lesurf
wrote:
In article <xn0nips719xaos900h@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines
<jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
So it was him and not Boris who destroyed the UK economy?
Garbage. There are many outside factors affecting the economy and we are >>> now free to take our own action to deal with them.
Erm... Well when it comes to factors like trade our 'freedom' has to also
deal with the other countries having their own 'freedom' to require
different conditions of trade to us. e.g. - the USA's wish to extend
patent
cash income for drugs sold to the NHS by their big pharma lobby, thus
hiking the costs of care in the UK. You may have noticed that the USA is
bigger than the UK, so it may be a challenge for us to fulfill our
'freedom' to refuse this while getting the level of trade we want.
Yes, of course! Have you never worked in a commercial environment? We
are free to negotiate on our own behalf, not have the EU do it for us.
Did you know that the number of unemployed is now about equal to the
number of job vacancies? Time for the unemployed to get on their bikes.
Did you know that sometimes people spout simplistic arguments that omit
relevant details? :-)
For example, how may of your (unstated) number of "unemployed" live so
far
from a job that the wage they'd be paid for it would mean they'd be in
poverty because of the travel costs, and they aren't fit enough to go
that
far on a bike? (Alas, they have no bus service since the days when the
Tories 'privatised' the regulation of bus provision outwith London. And
they can't afford to live in the bigger towns where they jobs are.)
How many would need some training that the vacancy requires, but which
the
employer won't pay anyone to gain?
How many of them are actually 24/7 carers for a close family member in
the
same home?
How many of those vacancies pay a decent wage and provide decent
conditions, etc?
etc.
I have no idea, if you want to know you can look it up I'm sure. People
who need jobs need to get off their backsides, the jobs are there for
the taking with a bit if effort.
On 04/06/2022 18:12, Jeff Gaines wrote:SNIP
I have no idea, if you want to know you can look it up I'm sure. People who need jobs need to get off their backsides, the jobs are there for
the taking with a bit if effort.
Implicit self-contradiction: If reasonable jobs are really there, they should be being filled, but they are not, so either employers are being
too picky, or would-be employees are genuinely not suitable, or else
they are too lazy to apply for the job. If one of the two former, then
your invocation of the statistic is irrelevant and therefore flawed, if
the latter, then we shouldn't've got rid of the EU employees who were prepared to do the jobs that British people are not.
The simple fact is that Brexit has hit our economy by a reasonably significant amount, but exactly what that amount is difficult to say
because the statistics have been muddied by the pandemic. Nevertheless,
you don't have to look very hard to find credible assessment that state this, here are just a few, 10 should be enough, even for you:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-59761292
https://obr.uk/box/the-latest-evidence-on-the-impact-of-brexit-on-uk-trade/
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/oct/28/economy-recovering-covid-brexit-eu
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2022/04/26/brexit-the-major-trade-disruption-came-after-the-uk-eu-agreement-took-effect-in-2021/
https://internationalbanker.com/finance/uk-economy-feeling-the-pain-a-year-on-from-brexit/
https://www.piie.com/research/piie-charts/uk-and-global-economy-after-brexit
https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-research-food-prices-hike-report-brexit-cost-living/
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-22/how-a-year-of-brexit-thumped-britain-s-economy-and-businesses
https://www.investmentmonitor.ai/analysis/two-years-brexit-uk-eu
https://www.ft.com/content/c6ee4ce2-95b3-4d92-858f-c50566529b5e
--
Fake news kills!
On 04/06/2022 in message <v39m9hldc43du6dck...@4ax.com>
Martin wrote:
I refuse to watch a TV station that employs the stinking turd in humanoid >>>form know as "Farage".
We owe him an enormous debt, I'm pretty sure that without him we would >>still be stuck in the EU.
So it was him and not Boris who destroyed the UK economy?Garbage. There are many outside factors affecting the economy and we are
now free to take our own action to deal with them.
Did you know that the number of unemployed is now about equal to the
number of job vacancies? Time for the unemployed to get on their bikes.
--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
Have you ever noticed that all the instruments searching for intelligent life are pointing away from Earth?
Farage on GB News. The sounds from all the remote interviews was fine,
but from the studio it was terrible. It was badly out of sync, there was distortion on peaks, no top, too much bottom,
and an odd room resonance.
At the start of Part 2, for just a few seconds there was good sound, in
sync, but with the bad sound on top of it and louder, and a second or so behind.
Bill
We owe him an enormous debt, I'm pretty sure that without him we would
still be stuck in the EU.
He should have been honoured for that if there was any justice but the
senior civil servants have too much influence and still have a grudge
about losing a chance to get on the Brussels gravy train.
On 04/06/2022 20:53, MB wrote:
He should have been honoured for that if there was any justice but the >>senior civil servants have too much influence and still have a grudge
about losing a chance to get on the Brussels gravy train.
Oh, grow up - if you can't argue better than a ten year old child then
it would be much better for you to keep your mouth shut and let everyone >think you're a fool than to open it and remove all shadow of doubt!
Before Brexshit, we did about 50% of our trade with the EU, by far the >largest market that we trade with, the next biggest was the US at about,
from memory, 19%-20%, less than half that with the EU. It always was a
damn fool thing to put unnecessary barriers in the way of that trade, and, >exactly as predicted, the UK economy is taking a hit as a result, see the >copious links already supplied in evidence.
The only grudges here are those brain-dead xenophobes who just can't admit >that, despite all the predictions beforehand now being borne out by
reality, Brexshit was always going to be and inevitably has been bad for
this country.
On 04/06/2022 in message <t7gfd5$4es$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
On 04/06/2022 20:53, MB wrote:
He should have been honoured for that if there was any justice but
the senior civil servants have too much influence and still have a
grudge about losing a chance to get on the Brussels gravy train.
Oh, grow up - if you can't argue better than a ten year old child
then it would be much better for you to keep your mouth shut and let
everyone think you're a fool than to open it and remove all shadow of
doubt!
Oh dear, pot-kettle-black.
Before Brexshit, we did about 50% of our trade with the EU, by far the
largest market that we trade with, the next biggest was the US at
about, from memory, 19%-20%, less than half that with the EU. It
always was a damn fool thing to put unnecessary barriers in the way of
that trade, and, exactly as predicted, the UK economy is taking a hit
as a result, see the copious links already supplied in evidence.
We're doing very well, left wing remoaner bullshit isn't convincing.
The only grudges here are those brain-dead xenophobes who just can't
admit that, despite all the predictions beforehand now being borne out
by reality, Brexshit was always going to be and inevitably has been
bad for this country.
Nonsense, it's been excellent,
your just a moaning remoaner, give it a
break.
Do your own research, there are daily reports of things we have been able
to do now we are independent.
In the sense of 'make use of' perhaps?
On 04/06/2022 18:14, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Do your own research, there are daily reports of things we have been able
to do now we are independent.
And usually not reported by the Left wing media. They will report a
company moving something to Europe but ignore those moving to the UK.
On 05/06/2022 07:58, MB wrote:
On 04/06/2022 18:14, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Do your own research, there are daily reports of things we have been able >>> to do now we are independent.
And usually not reported by the Left wing media. They will report a
company moving something to Europe but ignore those moving to the UK.
So tell us do, which companies *have* moved to the UK since Brexshit?
While you're doing the necessary research for your fake news, you may
care to consider the following real news demonstrating the 'patriotism'
of those who led us down the road to nowhere ...
John Redwood criticised over advice to pull money out of UK https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/13/labour-accuses-john-redwood-of-talking-britain-down?CMP=share_btn_tw
"Labour has criticised the arch-Eurosceptic MP John Redwood for “talking down Britain” after he recently wrote a column of financial advice in
which he recommended investors “look further afield” because of the
state of the UK economy.
In the piece for the Financial Times, the Conservative MP – who has a £180,000 second job as chief global strategist for Charles Stanley –
said the European Central Bank was promoting faster growth when the UK
was seeing a squeeze on credit."
[...]
The piece was published on 3 November but came to greater prominence
after a scathing comment piece was published over the weekend by a
Forbes commentator, Frances Coppola, who wrote that the MP had
“advocated a course of action by the UK government that he knows would seriously damage the UK economy”.
Coppola wrote: “To protect his job as an investment manager, he warned
his wealthy clients to get their money out before the disaster hits. To
me, this smacks of disaster capitalism. Engineer a crash while ensuring
your own interests are protected, then clean up when it hits. This is despicable behaviour by a lawmaker.”
[...]
Tom Brake, the Liberal Democrats’ Brexit spokesman, also criticised the column, calling the advice “sheer hypocrisy” from an MP who had promoted leaving the EU.
“He is advising investors to move their money out of the UK, all the
while pushing in parliament for a destructive hard Brexit that would see
even more investment desert the country,” Brake said."
... and ...
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/dec/08/ineos-boss-opts-to-build-british-heir-to-land-rover-defender-in-france
"Ineos boss opts to build 'British' heir to Land Rover Defender in France
Vocal Brexiter Sir Jim Ratcliffe vowed to make new Grenadier 4x4 in
Bridgend but has now bought car plant at Hambach"
... these are the 'patriotic' people who have landed us in the shit.
It’s time to move on. The damage has been done. Time to consider how to fix things.
Fortunately there are the beginnings of murmurs in political
circles about rejoining the single market. I don’t see it happening for a number of years though.
We're doing very well, left wing remoaner bullshit isn't convincing.
--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
There are 10 types of people in the world, those who do binary and those
who don't.
On 05/06/2022 14:11, Tweed wrote:
It’s time to move on. The damage has been done. Time to consider how to fix
things.
+1, but unfortunately that cannot happen while some still keep chanting mantras in a vain attempt to make lies come true, while ignoring the
actual truths that are constantly before their eyes.
Fortunately there are the beginnings of murmurs in political
circles about rejoining the single market. I don’t see it happening for a >> number of years though.
Yes, someday it'll almost certainly have to happen, but, as you say, not
for some time - even in the growing cold light of dawn, there's still nothing like enough realism in English politics.
On Saturday, 4 June 2022 at 22:56:42 UTC+1, Jeff Gaines wrote:
SNIP
We're doing very well, left wing remoaner bullshit isn't convincing.
Afraid not, look at the facts, not what Grant Schapps said this morning
(best in G7, when we are probably the worst)
For some facts have a glance at >https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/may/30/brexit-uk-firms-eu-trade-northern-ireland
No need to read the text, just look at the reputably sourced graphs.
On 05/06/2022 at 14:27, Java Jive wrote:
On 05/06/2022 14:11, Tweed wrote:
Fortunately there are the beginnings of murmurs in political
circles about rejoining the single market. I don’t see it happening
for a
number of years though.
Yes, someday it'll almost certainly have to happen, but, as you say, not
for some time - even in the growing cold light of dawn, there's still
nothing like enough realism in English politics.
Sounds nice, but why would they ever accept us back in?
On 05/06/2022 in message <aa01b0e8-79ea-49f4-91e1-6e9b2a67c95dn@googlegroups.com> R. Mark Clayton wrote:
On Saturday, 4 June 2022 at 22:56:42 UTC+1, Jeff Gaines wrote:
SNIP
We're doing very well, left wing remoaner bullshit isn't convincing.
Afraid not, look at the facts, not what Grant Schapps said this
morning (best in G7, when we are probably the worst)
For some facts have a glance at
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/may/30/brexit-uk-firms-eu-trade-northern-ireland
No need to read the text, just look at the reputably sourced graphs.
Wow, in reply to a complaint of left wing bullshit you provide a link to
left wing bullshit, you couldn't make it up.
About time the remoaners stopped moaning for goodness sake.
On 05/06/2022 17:43, Wilf wrote:
On 05/06/2022 at 14:27, Java Jive wrote:
On 05/06/2022 14:11, Tweed wrote:
Fortunately there are the beginnings of murmurs in political
circles about rejoining the single market. I don’t see it happening
for a
number of years though.
Yes, someday it'll almost certainly have to happen, but, as you say, not >>> for some time - even in the growing cold light of dawn, there's still >>> nothing like enough realism in English politics.
Sounds nice, but why would they ever accept us back in?
Because there are EU companies losing market share in the UK as well UK companies losing market share in the EU, though of course the latter is
much more significant as a %-age of GDP.
Well most of the jobs available outside hospitality are highly skilled, whereas there was an extremely strong correlation between Leave voters
and low educational attainment (no A' levels - ONS - EC correlation
based on Census & vote). Apparently those without any qualifications
vote 2:1 for Leave, but that does not mean they could hack it as a
surgeon, ICT guru, TV aerial rigger or lorry driver).
On 04/06/2022 in message <59f34d8606noise@audiomisc.co.uk> Jim Lesurf
wrote:
In article <xn0nips719xaos900h@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines ><jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
So it was him and not Boris who destroyed the UK economy?
Garbage. There are many outside factors affecting the economy and we
are now free to take our own action to deal with them.
Erm... Well when it comes to factors like trade our 'freedom' has to
also deal with the other countries having their own 'freedom' to
require different conditions of trade to us. e.g. - the USA's wish to >extend patent cash income for drugs sold to the NHS by their big pharma >lobby, thus hiking the costs of care in the UK. You may have noticed
that the USA is bigger than the UK, so it may be a challenge for us to >fulfill our 'freedom' to refuse this while getting the level of trade
we want.
Yes, of course! Have you never worked in a commercial environment?
We are free to negotiate on our own behalf, not have the EU do it for us.
How many would need some training that the vacancy requires, but which
the employer won't pay anyone to gain?
How many of them are actually 24/7 carers for a close family member in
the same home?
How many of those vacancies pay a decent wage and provide decent >conditions, etc?
etc.
I have no idea,
On 05/06/2022 07:58, MB wrote:
While you're doing the necessary research for your fake news, you may
care to consider the following real news demonstrating the 'patriotism'
of those who led us down the road to nowhere ...
John Redwood criticised over advice to pull money out of UK https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/13/labour-accuses-john-redwood-of-talking-britain-down?CMP=share_btn_tw
"Labour has criticised the arch-Eurosceptic MP John Redwood for “talking down Britain” after he recently wrote a column of financial advice in
which he recommended investors “look further afield” because of the
state of the UK economy.
In the piece for the Financial Times, the Conservative MP – who has a £180,000 second job as chief global strategist for Charles Stanley –
said the European Central Bank was promoting faster growth when the UK
was seeing a squeeze on credit."
On 05/06/2022 in messagetrolling alert!
<aa01b0e8-79ea-49f4...@googlegroups.com> R. Mark Clayton
wrote:
On Saturday, 4 June 2022 at 22:56:42 UTC+1, Jeff Gaines wrote:
SNIP
We're doing very well, left wing remoaner bullshit isn't convincing.
Afraid not, look at the facts, not what Grant Schapps said this morning >(best in G7, when we are probably the worst)Wow, in reply to a complaint of left wing bullshit you provide a link to
For some facts have a glance at >https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/may/30/brexit-uk-firms-eu-trade-northern-ireland
No need to read the text, just look at the reputably sourced graphs.
left wing bullshit, you couldn't make it up.
About time the remoaners stopped moaning for goodness sake.
--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
By the time you can make ends meet they move the ends
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 05/06/2022 17:43, Wilf wrote:
On 05/06/2022 at 14:27, Java Jive wrote:
On 05/06/2022 14:11, Tweed wrote:
Fortunately there are the beginnings of murmurs in political
circles about rejoining the single market. I don’t see it happening >>>>> for a
number of years though.
Yes, someday it'll almost certainly have to happen, but, as you say, not >>>> for some time - even in the growing cold light of dawn, there's still >>>> nothing like enough realism in English politics.
Sounds nice, but why would they ever accept us back in?
Because there are EU companies losing market share in the UK as well UK
companies losing market share in the EU, though of course the latter is
much more significant as a %-age of GDP.
Exactly. Businesses on either side want to trade, and the existing mess is hindering this.
Or do you have some facts to disprove that?
We don't NEED to make these things up, because they are true, it's people >like you who can't face simple economic facts that are making things up. >You've now been given 11 links from a wide spectrum of sources, including
a GOVERNMENT source, that explain the problems to our economy that
Brexshit has caused, and in reply have failed to give even a single one in >support of your view that everything is fine.
On 05/06/2022 in message <b0593ef1-26bb-4178-bf0f-32ec065eb060n@googlegroups.com> R. Mark Clayton wrote:
Or do you have some facts to disprove that?
I have expressed my view and I'm happy with it.
fortunately we live in a
free country so you can have your view, I'm not interested in it and I
don't want any evidence for it, its your.
On 05/06/2022 in message <t7inh9$nre$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
We don't NEED to make these things up, because they are true, it's
people like you who can't face simple economic facts that are making
things up. You've now been given 11 links from a wide spectrum of
sources, including a GOVERNMENT source, that explain the problems to
our economy that Brexshit has caused, and in reply have failed to give
even a single one in support of your view that everything is fine.
Not sure who "we" is, do you have a split personality?
I note your view
"these things" are true, you are of course welcome to that view and free
to express it.
I am delighted that we have regained our independence,
long may it last.
We were independent before because as an independent nation we chose toFor clarification, "we" (if by that you mean the voting public) didn't
be part of the EU and signed its treaties
On 05/06/2022 22:44, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 05/06/2022 in message <t7inh9$nre$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
We don't NEED to make these things up, because they are true, it's people >>>like you who can't face simple economic facts that are making things up. >>>You've now been given 11 links from a wide spectrum of sources, including >>>a GOVERNMENT source, that explain the problems to our economy that >>>Brexshit has caused, and in reply have failed to give even a single one >>>in support of your view that everything is fine.
Not sure who "we" is, do you have a split personality?
The two people who are presenting you with FACTS relating to the economic >state of Britain which you are desperately trying to ignore and pretend
that you haven't seen.
I note your view "these things" are true, you are of course welcome to >>that view and free to express it.
I note that you still haven't produced a single shred of evidence to
support your views, while I and others have produced, now, at least 13
links to reports and government publications supporting ours. Nobody is >fooled by your right-wing arsehole posturing that unpleasant economic
facts of life are merely the creation of left-wing media, and your
behavious makes you just another pathetic and unconvincing liar.
of our trade, but now on less favourable terms, and while we are indeed free to trade with the rest of world, we were free to do so before anyway, but while we were part of the EU we were stronger and could get better deals than we can now as a singleI am delighted that we have regained our independence, long may it last.
We were independent before because as an independent nation we chose to be >part of the EU and signed its treaties - to which we should have adhered
- because we gained thereby far more than we gave up. We have now gained an independence which is nominal only, and forsaken those very real advantages which were the original reason for our joining. We are still dependent on the EU for around 50%
I suggest you actually fucking bother to read - READ, MARK, LEARN, and >*INWARDLY DIGEST* as the old-fashioned educational saying has it - the
many links that have already been provided to you.
On 05/06/2022 22:41, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 05/06/2022 in message >><b0593ef1-26bb-4178-bf0f-32ec065eb060n@googlegroups.com> R. Mark Clayton >>wrote:
Or do you have some facts to disprove that?
I have expressed my view and I'm happy with it.
So, as everyone knew all along, no *FACT*s to support your view.
fortunately we live in a free country so you can have your view, I'm not >>interested in it and I don't want any evidence for it, its your.
Your refusal even to read the ubiquitous contrary evidence is the clearest >proof yet that this is now a quasi-religious belief on your part, and that >you're abusing this ng by using it self-importantly as your personal
pulpit.
On 05/06/2022 in message <t7jc3f$na7$1...@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
So, as everyone knew all along, no *FACT*s to support your view.I have no obligation to provide facts to support my view, who do you think you are?
Are you saying I have no right to do that? Now we are independent I can
think what I like and believe what I like, not your concern.
--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
On Monday, 6 June 2022 at 08:42:09 UTC+1, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 05/06/2022 in message <t7jc3f$na7$1...@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
SNIP
So, as everyone knew all along, no *FACT*s to support your view.I have no obligation to provide facts to support my view, who do you think >>you are?
You are quite right - you can believe the earth is flat if you like (NB I >have seen the curve of the earth if you do), but if you choose to express >this opinion in a public forum such as this you can expect two things: -
1. To be challenged to provide factual evidence to support your view.
and
2. Derision if you don't, particularly in the face of a large volume of >evidence to the contrary.
SNIP
Are you saying I have no right to do that? Now we are independent I can >>think what I like and believe what I like, not your concern.
Indeed, but what you publish here is.
Basically - put up or shut up!
PS it will be interesting having lied to win the referendum whether the >Brextremists can now come up with a liar convincing enough that people
will believe it is a success. Most people do not keep their fingers in
their ears.
On 04/06/2022 18:14, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Do your own research, there are daily reports of things we have been able
to do now we are independent.
And usually not reported by the Left wing media. They will report a
company moving something to Europe but ignore those moving to the UK.
You are quite right - you can believe the earth is flat if you like
(NB I have seen the curve of the earth if you do), but if you
choose to express this opinion in a public forum such as this you
can expect two things: -
1. To be challenged to provide factual evidence to support your
view.
and
2. Derision if you don't, particularly in the face of a large
volume of evidence to the contrary.
On 04/06/2022 in message <v39m9hldc43du6dckj95r6gn3bg3aepcvs@4ax.com>
Martin wrote:
I refuse to watch a TV station that employs the stinking turd in humanoid >>>>form know as "Farage".
We owe him an enormous debt, I'm pretty sure that without him we would >>>still be stuck in the EU.
So it was him and not Boris who destroyed the UK economy?
Garbage. There are many outside factors affecting the economy and we are
now free to take our own action to deal with them.
Did you know that the number of unemployed is now about equal to the
number of job vacancies? Time for the unemployed to get on their bikes.
In article <6bcf4d60-abf6-493d-9c3d-6c9f024cf91bn@googlegroups.com>, R.
Mark Clayton <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:
Well most of the jobs available outside hospitality are highly skilled,
whereas there was an extremely strong correlation between Leave voters
and low educational attainment (no A' levels - ONS - EC correlation
based on Census & vote). Apparently those without any qualifications
vote 2:1 for Leave, but that does not mean they could hack it as a
surgeon, ICT guru, TV aerial rigger or lorry driver).
One of the big problems in the UK economy is the way Westminster Gov has systematically cut provison for FE training of skills.(1) Started when Milk-Snatcher decided to abolish the system of training levy boards that supported apprenticeships, etc. That used to be a potential route upwards
in terms of employment for those who weren't successful at schools.
(1) Preceeded by the foolishness of not really supporting Technical Schools because of the English obsession with 'Grammar Schools'. (And, perhaps, because a good tech ed requires more money per student.)
"Jeff Gaines" <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Martin wrote:
I refuse to watch a TV station that employs the stinking turd in humanoid >>>>> form know as "Farage".
We owe him an enormous debt, I'm pretty sure that without him we would >>>> still be stuck in the EU.
So it was him and not Boris who destroyed the UK economy?
Garbage. There are many outside factors affecting the economy and we are
now free to take our own action to deal with them.
Did you know that the number of unemployed is now about equal to the
number of job vacancies? Time for the unemployed to get on their bikes.
Unemployed are low skilled. Job vacancies are for skilled.
For years the EU was UK's main trading partner. Look at import export figures now.
On 05/06/2022 at 14:27, Java Jive wrote:
On 05/06/2022 14:11, Tweed wrote:
It’s time to move on. The damage has been done. Time to consider how
to fix
things.
+1, but unfortunately that cannot happen while some still keep chanting
mantras in a vain attempt to make lies come true, while ignoring the
actual truths that are constantly before their eyes.
Fortunately there are the beginnings of murmurs in political
circles about rejoining the single market. I don’t see it happening
for a
number of years though.
Yes, someday it'll almost certainly have to happen, but, as you say, not
for some time - even in the growing cold light of dawn, there's still
nothing like enough realism in English politics.
Sounds nice, but why would they ever accept us back in?
On 05/06/2022 15:07, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article <6bcf4d60-abf6-493d-9c3d-6c9f024cf91bn@googlegroups.com>, R.
Mark Clayton <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:
Well most of the jobs available outside hospitality are highly skilled,
whereas there was an extremely strong correlation between Leave voters
and low educational attainment (no A' levels - ONS - EC correlation
based on Census & vote). Apparently those without any qualifications
vote 2:1 for Leave, but that does not mean they could hack it as a
surgeon, ICT guru, TV aerial rigger or lorry driver).
One of the big problems in the UK economy is the way Westminster Gov has
systematically cut provison for FE training of skills.(1) Started when
Milk-Snatcher decided to abolish the system of training levy boards that
supported apprenticeships, etc. That used to be a potential route upwards
in terms of employment for those who weren't successful at schools.
(1) Preceeded by the foolishness of not really supporting Technical
Schools
because of the English obsession with 'Grammar Schools'. (And, perhaps,
because a good tech ed requires more money per student.)
In practice the 'Techs' were really only for 11-plus failures, like the Secondary Moderns. And real engineers are expected to have degrees.
In article <6bcf4d60-abf6-493d-9c3d-6c9f024cf91bn@googlegroups.com>, R.
Mark Clayton <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:
Well most of the jobs available outside hospitality are highly skilled,
whereas there was an extremely strong correlation between Leave voters
and low educational attainment (no A' levels - ONS - EC correlation
based on Census & vote). Apparently those without any qualifications
vote 2:1 for Leave, but that does not mean they could hack it as a
surgeon, ICT guru, TV aerial rigger or lorry driver).
One of the big problems in the UK economy is the way Westminster Gov has systematically cut provison for FE training of skills.(1) Started when Milk-Snatcher decided to abolish the system of training levy boards that supported apprenticeships, etc. That used to be a potential route upwards
in terms of employment for those who weren't successful at schools.
(1) Preceeded by the foolishness of not really supporting Technical Schools because of the English obsession with 'Grammar Schools'. (And, perhaps, because a good tech ed requires more money per student.)
I have no obligation to provide facts to support my view, who do you think >>you are?
You are quite right - you can believe the earth is flat if you like (NB I >have seen the curve of the earth if you do), but if you choose to express >this opinion in a public forum such as this you can expect two things: -
As to the demographics of who did what in the each referendum, there is
some interesting analysis here: <https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/07/31/the-referendums-of-1975-and-2016-illustrate-the-continuity-and-change-in-british-euroscepticism/>
In article <0ab019b9-c0a7-46f6-bf22-e7afdbf6a8b9n@googlegroups.com>,
R. Mark Clayton <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:
You are quite right - you can believe the earth is flat if you like
(NB I have seen the curve of the earth if you do), but if you
choose to express this opinion in a public forum such as this you
can expect two things: -
1. To be challenged to provide factual evidence to support your
view.
and
2. Derision if you don't, particularly in the face of a large
volume of evidence to the contrary.
Really. This from the man who once told us that whilst driving at
speed in his car listening to the radio, he could clearly tell the
difference in sound quality between CDs and LPs and when asked, told
us this was not surface noise, just sound quality.
Yes. people believe anything, even that surrendering control of our
own country and any semblance of democracy to an unelected elite in
Brussels is good idea.
Just like signing up to the WHO pandemic
control plan is a good idea. If that doesn't guarantee another
pandemic very soon, nothing will.
On 05/06/2022 in message <t7jbgg$k02$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
On 05/06/2022 22:44, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Not sure who "we" is, do you have a split personality?
The two people who are presenting you with FACTS relating to the
economic state of Britain which you are desperately trying to ignore
and pretend that you haven't seen.
Do you have authority to speak for Mark Goodge?
I am not interested in
any facts you come up with,
I have my view, I am entitled to my view and
you can take it or leave it.
I note your view "these things" are true, you are of course welcome
to that view and free to express it.
I note that you still haven't produced a single shred of evidence to
support your views, while I and others have produced, now, at least 13
links to reports and government publications supporting ours. Nobody
is fooled by your right-wing arsehole posturing that unpleasant
economic facts of life are merely the creation of left-wing media, and
your behavious makes you just another pathetic and unconvincing liar.
I have no obligation to provide evidence, I have my view, I am entitled
to my view and you can take it or leave it.
I am delighted that we have regained our independence, long may it
last.
We were independent before because as an independent nation we chose
to be part of the EU and signed its treaties - to which we should
have adhered - because we gained thereby far more than we gave up.
We have now gained an independence which is nominal only, and forsaken
those very real advantages which were the original reason for our
joining. We are still dependent on the EU for around 50% of our
trade, but now on less favourable terms, and while we are indeed free
to trade with the rest of world, we were free to do so before anyway,
but while we were part of the EU we were stronger and could get better
deals than we can now as a single lone state:
"We" did not choose to be part of the EU, "we" did vote to stay in the
Common Market.
I suggest you actually fucking bother to read - READ, MARK, LEARN,
and *INWARDLY DIGEST* as the old-fashioned educational saying has it
- the many links that have already been provided to you.
Why , I have my view, I am entitled to my view and you can take it or
leave it.
On 06/06/2022 in message <0ab019b9-c0a7-46f6-bf22-e7afdbf6a8b9n@googlegroups.com> R. Mark Clayton wrote:
On Monday, 6 June 2022 at 08:42:09 UTC+1, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 05/06/2022 in message <t7jc3f$na7$1...@dont-email.me> Java Jive
wrote:
So, as everyone knew all along, no *FACT*s to support your view.
I have no obligation to provide facts to support my view, who do you
think you are?
You are quite right - you can believe the earth is flat if you like
(NB I have seen the curve of the earth if you do), but if you choose
to express this opinion in a public forum such as this you can expect
two things: -
1. To be challenged to provide factual evidence to support your view.
and
2. Derision if you don't, particularly in the face of a large volume
of evidence to the contrary.
No problems but I don't care about either.
Basically - put up or shut up!
I have no obligation to do either except it's off topic for the group so
the three of us (sorry I think I referred to you incorrectly) have an obligation to shut up. Nobody has an obligation to put up of course.
PS it will be interesting having lied to win the referendum whether
the Brextremists can now come up with a liar convincing enough that
people will believe it is a success. Most people do not keep their
fingers in their ears.
That i just an allegation put forward by snowflake remoaners who have
been brought up to believe that there are no losers.
It's time to move on. The damage has been done. Time to consider how to
fix things.
Yes, someday it'll almost certainly have to happen, but, as you say,
not for some time - even in the growing cold light of dawn, there's
still nothing like enough realism in English politics.
Sounds nice, but why would they ever accept us back in?
Not sure who "we" is, do you have a split personality? I note your view "these things" are true, you are of course welcome to that view and free
to express it. I am delighted that we have regained our independence,
long may it last.
On 05/06/2022 in message <b0593ef1-26bb-4178-bf0f-32ec065eb060n@googlegroups.com> R. Mark Clayton wrote:
Or do you have some facts to disprove that?
I have expressed my view and I'm happy with it. fortunately we live in a
free country so you can have your view,
So, as everyone knew all along, no *FACT*s to support your view.
I have no obligation to provide facts to support my view, who do you
think you are?
I am not interested in any facts you come up with, I have my view, I
am entitled to my view and you can take it or leave it.
In article <t7ia2u$8tu$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
It's time to move on. The damage has been done. Time to consider how to
fix things.
I'd agree. The snag is that some right-whinge people still can't face the fact that Brexit *has* - and still *is* - causing various problems despite the promises made of a Golden Age arriving via Unicorns. One reason for
this is the sheer incompetence of the BloJo Government, covered by their fairy-tale promises.
Jim
In article <xn0nirltlbx8j9800s@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines ><jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On 05/06/2022 in message >><b0593ef1-26bb-4178-bf0f-32ec065eb060n@googlegroups.com> R. Mark Clayton >>wrote:
Or do you have some facts to disprove that?
I have expressed my view and I'm happy with it. fortunately we live in a >>free country so you can have your view,
Alas "view" has a different meaning to "fact". In this case "fairy tale" is >fine as your "view" provided you don't delude others into believing it is
the real world.
In article <xn0nise9vciohe400w@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines ><jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
So, as everyone knew all along, no *FACT*s to support your view.
I have no obligation to provide facts to support my view, who do you
think you are?
You really should stop digging. :-)
In article <xn0nirlw6bxc92300t@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines ><jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Not sure who "we" is, do you have a split personality? I note your view >>"these things" are true, you are of course welcome to that view and free
to express it. I am delighted that we have regained our independence,
long may it last.
You'll be an SNP supporter, then. :-)
In article <xn0nise7ucilm8k00v@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines ><jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
I am not interested in any facts you come up with, I have my view, I
am entitled to my view and you can take it or leave it.
Perhaps you should write fairy stories for a living. However I should point >out that getting people to beleve delusions wrt actual reality is a risky >activity. Particularly when they find out harsh reality is very different.
Of course con-men over they ages usually ensure they have a financially >well-padded bolt-hole by then. But that's because they know in the first >place that they're talking dribble to fool the marks. And exploit the wish >many have to prefer a rosy promise to a shakey reality.
I have expressed my view and people can take it or leave it or do you
feel that others have a right to tell me how to think?
Perhaps you could point me to a post where I have tried to persuade
people to my view?
On 06/06/2022 08:19, Jeff Layman wrote:
As to the demographics of who did what in the each referendum, there is
some interesting analysis here:
<https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/07/31/the-referendums-of-1975-and-2016-illustrate-the-continuity-and-change-in-british-euroscepticism/>
The LSE blogs are usually pretty good, but perhaps not in this case -
graph after graph for 1975, but not a single one one for 2016, yet they
claim to be comparing the two.
And, besides, the vote has happened already, the current debate, or
rather wall of denial by certain people for whom this is a religion
rather than something about facts, is about what is happening now.
I am not trying to persuade others of anything. Sadly the die hard
remoaners still continue to barf out their views as facts but I am
sensible enough to ignore what they say - unless it is unusually
outrageous.
On 07/06/2022 11:11, Jeff Gaines wrote:
I am not trying to persuade others of anything. Sadly the die hard >>remoaners still continue to barf out their views as facts but I am
sensible enough to ignore what they say - unless it is unusually >>outrageous.
The very act of posting lies is an attempt to persuade others to believe >them. In your own private fairy land you can believe what you like, all
that is being asked of you is that you don't post about lies about the
real world on public media.
On 06/06/2022 10:27 am, Martin wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Martin wrote:
I refuse to watch a TV station that employs the stinking turd in humanoid
form know as "Farage".
We owe him an enormous debt, I'm pretty sure that without him we would >>>>> still be stuck in the EU.
So it was him and not Boris who destroyed the UK economy?
Garbage. There are many outside factors affecting the economy and we are >>> now free to take our own action to deal with them.
Did you know that the number of unemployed is now about equal to the
number of job vacancies? Time for the unemployed to get on their bikes.
Unemployed are low skilled. Job vacancies are for skilled.
There's nothing (except arrogance manifested as misplaced pride) to stop
"the skilled" from taking unskilled work as a stopgap. I remember taking
a temporary job felling trees and clearing shrubbery in the planned path
of a motorway in Cheshire, a really long time ago - more than fifty
years. It was exhausting and not very well-paid, but it was better than >claiming benefit.
AAMOF, that's the way the benefit system was designed to work.--
For years the EU was UK's main trading partner. Look at import export figures
now.
In article <t7img5$uct$1...@dont-email.me>, Wilf <wi...@postingx.uk> wrote:
Yes, someday it'll almost certainly have to happen, but, as you say,
not for some time - even in the growing cold light of dawn, there's
still nothing like enough realism in English politics.
Sounds nice, but why would they ever accept us back in?May depend on the meaning of "us" I suspect. 8-]
After all, Scotland voted against leaving the EU, and may become
independent. It may then amuse the EU to welcome Scotland as a member in
the future - if nothing else, amusing as a way to 'surround' the rUK and
give it yet another 'border' problem to muddle. 8->
Not likely soon, but given how things have been changing recently, who
knows!
Jim
--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me. Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
On 06/06/2022 23:50, Java Jive wrote:
On 06/06/2022 08:19, Jeff Layman wrote:
As to the demographics of who did what in the each referendum, there is
some interesting analysis here:
<https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/07/31/the-referendums-of-1975-and-2016-illustrate-the-continuity-and-change-in-british-euroscepticism/>
The LSE blogs are usually pretty good, but perhaps not in this case -
graph after graph for 1975, but not a single one one for 2016, yet they
claim to be comparing the two.
Yes, I found that a bit puzzling. But near the bottom, in the section
headed "Comparing voting at the 1975 and 2016 referendums", it states
"For the 2016 EU referendum, detailed results for group voting were
provided in a NatCen report published in December 2016*, and the
findings discussed below are taken from this report."
(*hyperlinked to <http://natcen.ac.uk/media/1319222/natcen_brexplanations-report-final-web2.pdf>)
The pdf is pretty comprehensive, but it would have been nice to have a 1975/2016 direct comparison where that was possible, rather than skip
between the LSE and NatCen figures.
And, besides, the vote has happened already, the current debate, or
rather wall of denial by certain people for whom this is a religion
rather than something about facts, is about what is happening now.
Come now JJ, you mean that you don't appreciate the MPs in the Tory
party who supported Boris yesterday? I understand from the news that
those 59% stand firmly behind Boris. Well, how else are they supposed to carry out their glossoanal activity when they've put him on a pedestal?
On 07/06/2022 12:10, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 07/06/2022 in message <t7naen$dfu$3@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
On 07/06/2022 11:11, Jeff Gaines wrote:
I am not trying to persuade others of anything. Sadly the die hard >>>>remoaners still continue to barf out their views as facts but I am >>>>sensible enough to ignore what they say - unless it is unusually >>>>outrageous.
The very act of posting lies is an attempt to persuade others to believe >>>them. In your own private fairy land you can believe what you like, all >>>that is being asked of you is that you don't post about lies about the >>>real world on public media.
My first response in the thread was:
"We owe him an enormous debt, I'm pretty sure that without him we would >>still be stuck in the EU."
And others have been of a similar ilk, if you can find one that you
believe is a lie then point it out to me.
On 05/06/2022 17:41, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 05/06/2022 <mess-id snipped for brevity> R. Mark Clayton wrote:
On Saturday, 4 June 2022 at 22:56:42 UTC+1, Jeff Gaines wrote:
We're doing very well, left wing remoaner bullshit isn't convincing.
The statement "We're doing very well" is a lie, because the economic >indicators available to us show that we are not. See also below.
Afraid not, look at the facts, not what Grant Schapps said this
morning (best in G7, when we are probably the worst)
For some facts have a glance at >>>https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/may/30/brexit-uk-firms-eu-trade-northern-ireland
No need to read the text, just look at the reputably sourced graphs.
Wow, in reply to a complaint of left wing bullshit you provide a link >
to left wing bullshit, you couldn't make it up.
As the old saying has it: "You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot >make him drink!"
The links given up thread and above were to a wide variety of sources, >including at least one to a government department stating the economic
facts as the government currently understands them to be, some of the
others were analysing and commenting on those same figures, while yet
others were of independent analyses, and all were saying pretty much the
same sort of thing, so both your claims above that they were to left-wing >bullshit were public lies.
On 07/06/2022 11:11, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Sadly the die hard remoaners still continue to barf out their views as >>facts
As described above, you were given copious links to facts, so the above is >another lie.
Etc, etc. You've been led to water many times now, it's time to drink it.
On 07/06/2022 in message <t7naen$dfu$3@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
On 07/06/2022 11:11, Jeff Gaines wrote:
I am not trying to persuade others of anything. Sadly the die hard
remoaners still continue to barf out their views as facts but I am
sensible enough to ignore what they say - unless it is unusually
outrageous.
The very act of posting lies is an attempt to persuade others to
believe them. In your own private fairy land you can believe what you
like, all that is being asked of you is that you don't post about lies
about the real world on public media.
My first response in the thread was:
"We owe him an enormous debt, I'm pretty sure that without him we would
still be stuck in the EU."
And others have been of a similar ilk, if you can find one that you
believe is a lie then point it out to me.
On 05/06/2022 <mess-id snipped for brevity> R. Mark Clayton wrote:
On Saturday, 4 June 2022 at 22:56:42 UTC+1, Jeff Gaines wrote:
We're doing very well, left wing remoaner bullshit isn't convincing.
Afraid not, look at the facts, not what Grant Schapps said this
morning (best in G7, when we are probably the worst)
For some facts have a glance at
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/may/30/brexit-uk-firms-eu-trade-northern-ireland
No need to read the text, just look at the reputably sourced graphs.
Wow, in reply to a complaint of left wing bullshit you provide a link
to left wing bullshit, you couldn't make it up.
Sadly the die hard remoaners still continue to barf out their viewsas facts
On 06/06/2022 10:34, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <0ab019b9-c0a7-46f6...@googlegroups.com>,
R. Mark Clayton <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:
Really. This from the man who once told us that whilst driving at
speed in his car listening to the radio, he could clearly tell the difference in sound quality between CDs and LPs.
and when asked, told
us this was not surface noise, just sound quality.
Mmmmm! From memory because it's not worth the bother to check, I rather
think that was someone else actually.
Yes. people believe anything, even that surrendering control of our
own country and any semblance of democracy to an unelected elite in Brussels is good idea.
TROLL! PROVEN LIE REPEATED!
As has already been proven months ago in this same thread, the EU's
system of government is at least as democratic as the UK's, and arguably
is more so.
We are doing very well in many areas.
In what areas, where are your facts to support this claim?
And now the goalposts move again. First it was: "We're doing very well". >Next, after being challenged to justify that claim, it was: "I don't have
to, it's just my view", now it's: "We are doing very well in many areas",
all without a single supporting fact given in evidence.
It is you who is trying to interpret that as just relating to economics >>-where there are many factors affecting it of course.
The lie written on the side of a bus was economic one, and you haven't
given any evidence whatsoever to support any other claim of benefit.
Etc, etc. You've been led to water many times now, it's time to drink >>>it.
Not sure what I am supposed to drink but why do you keep talking about >>economics? Our independence from the EU (which we didn't vote to join) >>brings many benefits in my view but I am not stuck in the economics
groove.
Yet, despite many requests, you seem unable to state a single one, let
alone actually justify it with supporting facts. When anyone posts crap
here which I set out to debunk, if they supply a link, usually I >read/listen/watch it, if only far enough to be able to debunk it >convincingly, whereas you just refuse to even read the links to
information that runs counter to your religion, in other words, you are in
a state of denial.
What you choose to believe in your own private fairyland is your own >business, but any lie you post here will be debunked.
On 07/06/2022 in message <t7ndtn$q8m$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
On 07/06/2022 12:10, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 07/06/2022 in message <t7naen$dfu$3@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
On 07/06/2022 11:11, Jeff Gaines wrote:
I am not trying to persuade others of anything. Sadly the die hard
remoaners still continue to barf out their views as facts but I am
sensible enough to ignore what they say - unless it is unusually
outrageous.
The very act of posting lies is an attempt to persuade others to
believe them. In your own private fairy land you can believe what
you like, all that is being asked of you is that you don't post
about lies about the real world on public media.
My first response in the thread was:
"We owe him an enormous debt, I'm pretty sure that without him we
would still be stuck in the EU."
And others have been of a similar ilk, if you can find one that you
believe is a lie then point it out to me.
On 05/06/2022 17:41, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 05/06/2022 <mess-id snipped for brevity> R. Mark Clayton wrote:
On Saturday, 4 June 2022 at 22:56:42 UTC+1, Jeff Gaines wrote:
We're doing very well, left wing remoaner bullshit isn't convincing.
The statement "We're doing very well" is a lie, because the economic
indicators available to us show that we are not. See also below.
We are doing very well in many areas.
It is you who is trying to
interpret that as just relating to economics -where there are many
factors affecting it of course.
Afraid not, look at the facts, not what Grant Schapps said this
morning (best in G7, when we are probably the worst)
For some facts have a glance at
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/may/30/brexit-uk-firms-eu-trade-northern-ireland
No need to read the text, just look at the reputably sourced graphs.
Wow, in reply to a complaint of left wing bullshit you provide a
link > to left wing bullshit, you couldn't make it up.
As the old saying has it: "You can lead a horse to water, but you
cannot make him drink!"
The links given up thread and above were to a wide variety of sources,
including at least one to a government department stating the economic
facts as the government currently understands them to be, some of the
others were analysing and commenting on those same figures, while yet
others were of independent analyses, and all were saying pretty much
the same sort of thing, so both your claims above that they were to
left-wing bullshit were public lies.
The quoting is getting a little confused but from memory the link was to
the Graudian - left wing bullshit.
On 07/06/2022 11:11, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Sadly the die hard remoaners still continue to barf out their views
as facts
As described above, you were given copious links to facts, so the
above is another lie.
Etc, etc. You've been led to water many times now, it's time to drink
it.
Not sure what I am supposed to drink but why do you keep talking about economics? Our independence from the EU (which we didn't vote to join)
brings many benefits in my view but I am not stuck in the economics groove.
I am expressing a view, you keep making assumptions.
The snag is that some right-whinge people still can't face the fact
that Brexit *has* - and still *is* - causing various problems
despite the promises made of a Golden Age arriving via Unicorns.
One reason for this is the sheer incompetence of the BloJo
Government, covered by their fairy-tale promises.
On 07/06/2022 in message <t7ndtn$q8m$1...@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
The quoting is getting a little confused but from memory the link was to
the Graudian - left wing bullshit.
Our independence from the EU (which we didn't vote to join)In the very first UK wide referendum in 1975 it was >2:1 to stay in.
brings many benefits in my view but I am not stuck in the economics groove.
--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
In article <xn0niu16de9gs99017@news.individual.net>,
Jeff Gaines <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
I am expressing a view, you keep making assumptions.
Jeff, a word to the wise.
Trust me on this if nothing else.
Don't argue with JJ. There is nothing more pointless, he's happy to
argue black is white. He's a bit odd, just ignore him.
Bob.
Jim Lesurf wrote:
Jeff Gaines <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Not sure who "we" is, do you have a split personality? I note your view
"these things" are true, you are of course welcome to that view and free >>> to express it. I am delighted that we have regained our independence,
long may it last.
You'll be an SNP supporter, then. :-)
If the UK wants Scotland to be independent then it should be, we should
know from our imperial past that trying to force countries to stay in
the empire doesn't work. Obviously the whole UK must vote.
JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
Martin wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Martin wrote:
I refuse to watch a TV station that employs the stinking turd in humanoid
form know as "Farage".
We owe him an enormous debt, I'm pretty sure that without him we would >>>>>> still be stuck in the EU.
So it was him and not Boris who destroyed the UK economy?
Garbage. There are many outside factors affecting the economy and we are >>>> now free to take our own action to deal with them.
Did you know that the number of unemployed is now about equal to the
number of job vacancies? Time for the unemployed to get on their bikes.
Unemployed are low skilled. Job vacancies are for skilled.
There's nothing (except arrogance manifested as misplaced pride) to stop
"the skilled" from taking unskilled work as a stopgap. I remember taking
a temporary job felling trees and clearing shrubbery in the planned path
of a motorway in Cheshire, a really long time ago - more than fifty
years. It was exhausting and not very well-paid, but it was better than
claiming benefit.
There's a lot of things stopping unskilled taking skilled jobs.
AAMOF, that's the way the benefit system was designed to work.
In article <59f439bbf4noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
The snag is that some right-whinge people still can't face the fact
that Brexit *has* - and still *is* - causing various problems
despite the promises made of a Golden Age arriving via Unicorns.
One reason for this is the sheer incompetence of the BloJo
Government, covered by their fairy-tale promises.
I love the way you refer to "right-whinge people" and then go on to
have a good whinge. :-)
I agree that Boris has made a pig's ear of Brexit with things like
leaving NI in the EU and the border down the Irish sea.
Though in
fairness to him, he was left a terrible hand to play after the
duplicitous Theresa May intentionally negotiated a total surrender.
Brexit was never about improving trade, everyone who voted for Brexit realised that it would have a negative impact especially during the inevitable sulking phase but considered that other things were more important.
In article <pplpd6$s78$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
The economic damage to the country at the moment is being caused by
the treasury and the bank of england who are both taxing and
restricting money supply ie. putting the brakes on as a deliberate
policy - look it up. There has been no damage attributed to the vote.
If there had been, remain would be all over it but they're not
because much to their chagrin there isn't any, despite their absurd
and proven wrong predictions.
When we
went into the common market we immediately went into a recession,
when we entered the EU we immediately went into another recession.
Look that up too and then look at the exchange rate mechanism and
black Wednesday.
There is no evidence that the EU has ever helped the
British economy.
For me, the fairy-tale promise that wasn't kept was getting us from
under the control of the EU, a body we can't un-elect.
But we were
out enough to do a much better job on vaccines which resulted in some
odious antics and foot stamping from the embarrassed, plodding EU.
But I notice all the Liberal, Left, Remoaners on here wish to blame
Brexit for all our financial ills.
Never a mention of the insanity of
shutting down the nation for two years, that had no impact did it?
Or
how about the socialist style massive overspend of billions and the consequential high tax demand?
Or the effect of our absurd and
utterly pointless "action on climate change".
or the endless sums of
money pumped into the NHS that ends up spent on wokery by idiot
managers.
No, none of that has had any barring has it. No because the
Liberal left caused that damage and constantly wanted it all harder,
sooner, longer.
Brexit is a very handy scapegoat indeed.
Disingenuous hypocrisy.
A very famous woman once said something to the effect that the EU's
collapse is inevitable, it's just a question of how much damage it
does between now and then. I'm sure she was correct, she usually was.
On Tuesday, 7 June 2022 at 12:59:58 UTC+1, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 07/06/2022 in message <t7ndtn$q8m$1...@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:SNIP
The quoting is getting a little confused but from memory the link was to >>the Graudian - left wing bullshit.
It was, but you were asked to look at the graphs based on published
evidence [and implicitly retract your support for Schapp's false statement)
Our independence from the EU (which we didn't vote to join)In the very first UK wide referendum in 1975 it was >2:1 to stay in.
brings many benefits in my view but I am not stuck in the economics
groove.
Oh you mean like loss of freedom of movement?
I benefited from Maggie signing the Single European Act by working there.
No longer possible without oodles of paperwork.
To be fair xenophobes rejoiced that thousands of Polish lorry drivers went >home.
On 07/06/2022 in message <t7nhd9$1dt$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
We are doing very well in many areas.
In what areas, where are your facts to support this claim?
And now the goalposts move again. First it was: "We're doing very
well". Next, after being challenged to justify that claim, it was: "I
don't have to, it's just my view", now it's: "We are doing very well
in many areas", all without a single supporting fact given in evidence.
I am expressing a view, you keep making assumptions.
It is you who is trying to interpret that as just relating to
economics -where there are many factors affecting it of course.
The lie written on the side of a bus was economic one, and you haven't
given any evidence whatsoever to support any other claim of benefit.
I didn't write anything on the side of a bus.
You didn't believe it did
you, you would have to be a complete muppet to believe that sort of
marketing puff.
Etc, etc. You've been led to water many times now, it's time to
drink it.
Not sure what I am supposed to drink but why do you keep talking
about economics? Our independence from the EU (which we didn't vote
to join) brings many benefits in my view but I am not stuck in the
economics groove.
Yet, despite many requests, you seem unable to state a single one, let
alone actually justify it with supporting facts. When anyone posts
crap here which I set out to debunk, if they supply a link, usually I
read/listen/watch it, if only far enough to be able to debunk it
convincingly, whereas you just refuse to even read the links to
information that runs counter to your religion, in other words, you
are in a state of denial.
Why on earth should I post links about my views, I am not on a crusade
and don't care if people believe them or not.
What you choose to believe in your own private fairyland is your own
business, but any lie you post here will be debunked.
I used to work in a home for people with learning difficulties, autism, down syndrome etc. and the way you express things, and your expectation
that sentient adults will march to your tune, is beginning to wake some memories, have we met?
On 07/06/2022 in message <59f4d6ad82bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> Bob Latham wrote:
Don't argue with JJ. There is nothing more pointless, he's happy to
argue black is white. He's a bit odd, just ignore him.
Thanks, I seem to have been a bit slow to realise that and this is a
nice group which I enjoy so I'll stop teasing him :-)
If the UK wants Scotland to be independent then it should be, we should
know from our imperial past that trying to force countries to stay in the empire doesn't work. Obviously the whole UK must vote.
On 07/06/2022 in message <0e1b17a3-bf5c-4dd1-8c4d-05b9d1ebe0f7n@googlegroups.com> R. Mark Clayton wrote:
It was, but you were asked to look at the graphs based on published
evidence [and implicitly retract your support for Schapp's false
statement)
I thought 1984 was fiction, why do the thought police feel it is
appropriate to ask me to change my views?
Our independence from the EU (which we didn't vote to join)In the very first UK wide referendum in 1975 it was >2:1 to stay in.
NO! Remoaners keep saying that IT WASN'T A VOTE TO STAY IN THE EU, it
was a vote to remain in the Common Market and I voted "yes".
This is my last word, we have annoyed the group long enough
but I have
grave concerns about remoaners spreading propaganda on social media.
NO! Remoaners keep saying that IT WASN'T A VOTE TO STAY IN THE EU, it was
a vote to remain in the Common Market and I voted "yes".
On 07/06/2022 11:07, Jeff Gaines wrote:
If the UK wants Scotland to be independent then it should be, we should
know from our imperial past that trying to force countries to stay in the
empire doesn't work. Obviously the whole UK must vote.
The problem is that there are no signs of the majority in Scotland
wanting partition.
On 07/06/2022 17:29, Jeff Gaines wrote:
NO! Remoaners keep saying that IT WASN'T A VOTE TO STAY IN THE EU, it was
a vote to remain in the Common Market and I voted "yes".
Which was purely a trading organisation, I think the Euro Army (like
someone features) was denied.
Don't know if it is true but I read once the Common Market has gone
through a series of name changes without every bothering with the legal formalities.
In practice the 'Techs' were really only for 11-plus failures, like the Secondary Moderns. And real engineers are expected to have degrees.
Unemployed are low skilled. Job vacancies are for skilled.
There's nothing (except arrogance manifested as misplaced pride) to stop
"the skilled" from taking unskilled work as a stopgap.
I have no obligation to do either except it's off topic for the group so
the three of us (sorry I think I referred to you incorrectly) have an obligation to shut up. Nobody has an obligation to put up of course.
You can't blame a government of the 1980s for the very "right on"
Crosland policy of wrecking English education. It started in the 1960s
and was continued throughout the 1970s. The incoming 1979 government
actually stopped that rot, whereas you paint the picture the opposite
way round.
On Tuesday, 7 June 2022 at 10:07:39 UTC+1, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article <t7img5$uct$1...@dont-email.me>, Wilf <wi...@postingx.uk> wrote: >> > >
May depend on the meaning of "us" I suspect. 8-]Yes, someday it'll almost certainly have to happen, but, as you say,
not for some time - even in the growing cold light of dawn, there's
still nothing like enough realism in English politics.
Sounds nice, but why would they ever accept us back in?
After all, Scotland voted against leaving the EU, and may become
independent. It may then amuse the EU to welcome Scotland as a member in
the future - if nothing else, amusing as a way to 'surround' the rUK and
give it yet another 'border' problem to muddle. 8->
Not likely soon, but given how things have been changing recently, who
knows!
Jim
--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Border with Scotland in sparsely populated area, with few crossing points.
Not sure what I am supposed to drink but why do you keep talking about >economics? Our independence from the EU (which we didn't vote to join)
brings many benefits in my view but I am not stuck in the economics groove.
There was lots of noise - road, wind, engine, but nevertheless I could
easily differentiate. Probably the dynamic range, or just the much
poorer S/N ratio on vinyl.
I agree that Boris has made a pig's ear of Brexit with things like
leaving NI in the EU and the border down the Irish sea.
He had no choice.
In article <zf2dncNgUYMvUgD_nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, Max
Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
In practice the 'Techs' were really only for 11-plus failures, like the Secondary Moderns. And real engineers are expected to have degrees.
That - and the fact that they required a higher level of finance per
student - was one of the main factors used to undermine them.
The presumption being that "clever people go to Grammar Schools" - which
got more cash/pupil, of course, than the 'Secondary Moderns' that could
omit much of the costly training and materials for skilled trades.
So it was a nice idea in principle, but was then set up to fail because
of the way things were run, funded, and judged. Aided by the clueless "11 Plus exam" methods of selection being so inherently incompetent.
Things were, I think, rather different in countries like Germany. Because
the attitude to the various types of student, work, etc, was rather
different there to England.
Jim
In article <59f4bf00b6noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <zf2dncNgUYMvUgD_nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, Max
Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
In practice the 'Techs' were really only for 11-plus failures, like the
Secondary Moderns. And real engineers are expected to have degrees.
That - and the fact that they required a higher level of finance per
student - was one of the main factors used to undermine them.
The presumption being that "clever people go to Grammar Schools" - which
got more cash/pupil, of course, than the 'Secondary Moderns' that could
omit much of the costly training and materials for skilled trades.
So it was a nice idea in principle, but was then set up to fail because
of the way things were run, funded, and judged. Aided by the clueless "11
Plus exam" methods of selection being so inherently incompetent.
Things were, I think, rather different in countries like Germany. Because
the attitude to the various types of student, work, etc, was rather
different there to England.
Jim
In Germany, Engineering is a respected profession.
"Jeff Gaines" <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
Not sure what I am supposed to drink but why do you keep talking about
economics? Our independence from the EU (which we didn't vote to join)
brings many benefits in my view but I am not stuck in the economics groove.
You live in a democracy. A majority elected the government The government voted
to join. That's how democracies work.
You live in a democracy. A majority elected the government The government voted
to join. That's how democracies work.
On 08/06/2022 10:57 am, charles wrote:
In article <59f4bf00b6noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <zf2dncNgUYMvUgD_nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, Max
Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
In practice the 'Techs' were really only for 11-plus failures, like
the Secondary Moderns. And real engineers are expected to have
degrees.
That - and the fact that they required a higher level of finance per
student - was one of the main factors used to undermine them.
The presumption being that "clever people go to Grammar Schools" -
which got more cash/pupil, of course, than the 'Secondary Moderns'
that could omit much of the costly training and materials for skilled
trades.
So it was a nice idea in principle, but was then set up to fail
because of the way things were run, funded, and judged. Aided by the
clueless "11 Plus exam" methods of selection being so inherently
incompetent.
Things were, I think, rather different in countries like Germany.
Because the attitude to the various types of student, work, etc, was
rather different there to England.
Jim
In Germany, Engineering is a respected profession.
It is so in the UK as well.
On 08/06/2022 10:56, Martin wrote:
You live in a democracy. A majority elected the government The government >>voted
to join. That's how democracies work.
I suspect he might be referring to originally voting to join a trading >partnership which evolved, without further votes into the start of a >federalised Europe with its laws overruling UK law, an Army (even though
they denied any plans for a Euro-army). The Euro-extremists have never >really admitted that their eventual aim was a federal Europe ruled from >Brussels.
On 08/06/2022 in message <t7pug6$cv8$1@dont-email.me> MB wrote:
On 08/06/2022 10:56, Martin wrote:
You live in a democracy. A majority elected the government The
government voted
to join. That's how democracies work.
I suspect he might be referring to originally voting to join a trading
partnership which evolved, without further votes into the start of a
federalised Europe with its laws overruling UK law, an Army (even
though they denied any plans for a Euro-army). The Euro-extremists
have never really admitted that their eventual aim was a federal
Europe ruled from Brussels.
Spot on, in 1974 or 1975 I think?
In article <jgbbvjF48jdU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
On 08/06/2022 10:57 am, charles wrote:
In article <59f4bf00b6noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <zf2dncNgUYMvUgD_nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, Max
Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
In practice the 'Techs' were really only for 11-plus failures, like
the Secondary Moderns. And real engineers are expected to have
degrees.
That - and the fact that they required a higher level of finance per
student - was one of the main factors used to undermine them.
The presumption being that "clever people go to Grammar Schools" -
which got more cash/pupil, of course, than the 'Secondary Moderns'
that could omit much of the costly training and materials for skilled
trades.
So it was a nice idea in principle, but was then set up to fail
because of the way things were run, funded, and judged. Aided by the
clueless "11 Plus exam" methods of selection being so inherently
incompetent.
Things were, I think, rather different in countries like Germany.
Because the attitude to the various types of student, work, etc, was
rather different there to England.
Jim
In Germany, Engineering is a respected profession.
It is so in the UK as well.
Theoretically. But, to most people 'an engineer' is the person who comes to mend the washing machine, etc.
On 08/06/2022 11:39 am, charles wrote:
In article <jgbbvjF48jdU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
On 08/06/2022 10:57 am, charles wrote:
In article <59f4bf00b6noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <zf2dncNgUYMvUgD_nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, Max
Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
In practice the 'Techs' were really only for 11-plus failures, like >>>>> the Secondary Moderns. And real engineers are expected to have
degrees.
That - and the fact that they required a higher level of finance per >>>> student - was one of the main factors used to undermine them.
The presumption being that "clever people go to Grammar Schools" -
which got more cash/pupil, of course, than the 'Secondary Moderns'
that could omit much of the costly training and materials for
skilled trades.
So it was a nice idea in principle, but was then set up to fail
because of the way things were run, funded, and judged. Aided by the >>>> clueless "11 Plus exam" methods of selection being so inherently
incompetent.
Things were, I think, rather different in countries like Germany.
Because the attitude to the various types of student, work, etc, was >>>> rather different there to England.
Jim
In Germany, Engineering is a respected profession.
It is so in the UK as well.
Theoretically. But, to most people 'an engineer' is the person who
comes to mend the washing machine, etc.
That's just a question of English colloquialism.
Nothing to do with the professional status of graduate engineers.
Maybe a 'collloquialism', but its what most people think.
In article <jgbfoqF4refU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
On 08/06/2022 11:39 am, charles wrote:
In article <jgbbvjF48jdU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
On 08/06/2022 10:57 am, charles wrote:
In article <59f4bf00b6noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <zf2dncNgUYMvUgD_nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, Max >>>>>> Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
In practice the 'Techs' were really only for 11-plus failures, like >>>>>>> the Secondary Moderns. And real engineers are expected to have
degrees.
That - and the fact that they required a higher level of finance per >>>>>> student - was one of the main factors used to undermine them.
The presumption being that "clever people go to Grammar Schools" - >>>>>> which got more cash/pupil, of course, than the 'Secondary Moderns' >>>>>> that could omit much of the costly training and materials for
skilled trades.
So it was a nice idea in principle, but was then set up to fail
because of the way things were run, funded, and judged. Aided by the >>>>>> clueless "11 Plus exam" methods of selection being so inherently
incompetent.
Things were, I think, rather different in countries like Germany.
Because the attitude to the various types of student, work, etc, was >>>>>> rather different there to England.
Jim
In Germany, Engineering is a respected profession.
It is so in the UK as well.
Theoretically. But, to most people 'an engineer' is the person who
comes to mend the washing machine, etc.
That's just a question of English colloquialism.
Maybe a 'collloquialism', but its what most people think.
Nothing to do with the professional status of graduate engineers.
I totally agree. Have they yet added "Chartered Engineer" to the list of those who can verify your passport photo? Or are we still 'outside the pale'?
In article <jgbfoqF4refU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
On 08/06/2022 11:39 am, charles wrote:
In article <jgbbvjF48jdU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
On 08/06/2022 10:57 am, charles wrote:
In article <59f4bf00b6noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <zf2dncNgUYMvUgD_nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, Max >>>>>> Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
In practice the 'Techs' were really only for 11-plus failures, like >>>>>>> the Secondary Moderns. And real engineers are expected to have
degrees.
That - and the fact that they required a higher level of finance per >>>>>> student - was one of the main factors used to undermine them.
The presumption being that "clever people go to Grammar Schools" - >>>>>> which got more cash/pupil, of course, than the 'Secondary Moderns' >>>>>> that could omit much of the costly training and materials for
skilled trades.
So it was a nice idea in principle, but was then set up to fail
because of the way things were run, funded, and judged. Aided by the >>>>>> clueless "11 Plus exam" methods of selection being so inherently
incompetent.
Things were, I think, rather different in countries like Germany.
Because the attitude to the various types of student, work, etc, was >>>>>> rather different there to England.
In Germany, Engineering is a respected profession.
It is so in the UK as well.
Theoretically. But, to most people 'an engineer' is the person who
comes to mend the washing machine, etc.
That's just a question of English colloquialism.
Maybe a 'collloquialism' [eh?], but its what most people think.
Nothing to do with the professional status of graduate engineers.
I totally agree. Have they yet added "Chartered Engineer" to the list of those who can verify your passport photo? Or are we still 'outside the pale'?
BloJo duly promised magical 'technology' that would allow goods to
whoosh between Eire/NI/UK without any pause or paperwork or cost.
This was 'oven ready'. The EU said this was bonkers, but BloJo
insisted, so they said, "Ok, your problem to fix then", and signed
up on that basis. His problem.
On 08/06/2022 12:51, charles wrote:
Maybe a 'collloquialism', but its what most people think.
In many countries, "Engineer" is a title used with the name like
"Doctor" or "Professor" though do seem to have been debased from the
number of alleged "experts" on TV programmes who are "Doctor" or
"Professor" which often just seems to mean they have written a book and perhaps give the odd lecture :-)
In article <59f545676enoise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
BloJo duly promised magical 'technology' that would allow goods to
whoosh between Eire/NI/UK without any pause or paperwork or cost.
This was 'oven ready'. The EU said this was bonkers, but BloJo
insisted, so they said, "Ok, your problem to fix then", and signed
up on that basis. His problem.
Not the case.
The solutions offered were perfectly fine.
The problem lay with the
EU and Southern Island that wanted to use the issue to damage the UK
and work towards a united Ireland.
You're doing what you always do. Take your extreme prejudices and
scrape the barrel for 'evidence' to support it.
And of course we can see the usual left character of hate running
through your comments. no one hates like a lefty
Theoretically. But, to most people 'an engineer' is the person who comes to mend the washing machine, etc.
On 07/06/2022 14:27, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <59f439bbf4noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
The snag is that some right-whinge people still can't face the fact
that Brexit *has* - and still *is* - causing various problems
despite the promises made of a Golden Age arriving via Unicorns.
One reason for this is the sheer incompetence of the BloJo
Government, covered by their fairy-tale promises.
I love the way you refer to "right-whinge people" and then go on to
have a good whinge. :-)
I agree that Boris has made a pig's ear of Brexit with things like
leaving NI in the EU and the border down the Irish sea.
He had no choice. If you'd bothered to watch the documentary
covering the negotiations that you were recommended to watch several
years ago, you'd know that Eire and NI sent a joint delegation during
the talks pleading to both sides that that they didn't want to see a
hard border dividing Ireland as of old reinstated.
[TRIMMED]
[SNIP]
Yes, I found that a bit puzzling. But near the bottom, in the section
headed "Comparing voting at the 1975 and 2016 referendums", it states
"For the 2016 EU referendum, detailed results for group voting were
provided in a NatCen report published in December 2016*, and the
findings discussed below are taken from this report."
(*hyperlinked to <http://natcen.ac.uk/media/1319222/natcen_brexplanations-report- final-web2.pdf>)
The pdf is pretty comprehensive, but it would have been nice to have
a 1975/2016 direct comparison where that was possible, rather than
skip between the LSE and NatCen figures.
I totally agree. Have they yet added "Chartered Engineer" to the list of those who can verify your passport photo? Or are we still 'outside the pale'?
On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 12:51:15 +0100, charles wrote:
I totally agree. Have they yet added "Chartered Engineer" to the list of
those who can verify your passport photo? Or are we still 'outside the
pale'?
About 40 years ago I was working for a post production company in Soho and
my job title was Engineering Manager. One of the office girls asked me if
I would sign her passport application and photo as a person in a
responsible position. I said it might not work but she pleaded so I
signed and she went off to the passport office and came back later saying >they wouldn't accept it because I had not entered my qualifications. Well
I didn't think ONC Electrical Engineering would work but I was a member of >The Royal Television Society, so with tongue in cheek I entered 'MRTS' and >she came back waving her passport!
On 07/06/2022 in message
<0e1b17a3-bf5c-4dd1...@googlegroups.com> R. Mark Clayton
wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 June 2022 at 12:59:58 UTC+1, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 07/06/2022 in message <t7ndtn$q8m$1...@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote: >>SNIP
The quoting is getting a little confused but from memory the link was to >>the Graudian - left wing bullshit.
It was, but you were asked to look at the graphs based on published >evidence [and implicitly retract your support for Schapp's false statement) I thought 1984 was fiction, why do the thought police feel it isappropriate to ask me to change my views?
NO! Remoaners keep saying that IT WASN'T A VOTE TO STAY IN THE EU, it wasOur independence from the EU (which we didn't vote to join)In the very first UK wide referendum in 1975 it was >2:1 to stay in.
a vote to remain in the Common Market and I voted "yes".
brings many benefits in my view but I am not stuck in the economics >>groove.
Oh you mean like loss of freedom of movement?
I benefited from Maggie signing the Single European Act by working there. >No longer possible without oodles of paperwork.
To be fair xenophobes rejoiced that thousands of Polish lorry drivers went >home.Good luck to them, your arrogance in trying to change what I think is astonishing.
This is my last word, we have annoyed the group long enough but I have
grave concerns about remoaners spreading propaganda on social media.
--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
If you ever find something you like buy a lifetime supply because they
will stop making it
You live in a democracy. A majority elected the government The
government voted to join. That's how democracies work.
They work even better when the electorate's view is expressed directly, without having be filtered through the beliefs of a particular and
largely self-appointed set of individuals with a tendency to "go native"
when faced with a liberal establishment.
In article <59f545676enoise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
BloJo duly promised magical 'technology' that would allow goods to
whoosh between Eire/NI/UK without any pause or paperwork or cost. This
was 'oven ready'. The EU said this was bonkers, but BloJo insisted, so
they said, "Ok, your problem to fix then", and signed up on that
basis. His problem.
Not the case.
The solutions offered were perfectly fine.
Well I didn't think ONC Electrical Engineering would work but I was a
member of The Royal Television Society, so with tongue in cheek I
entered 'MRTS' and she came back waving her passport!
I totally agree. Have they yet added "Chartered Engineer" to the list of those who can verify your passport photo? Or are we still 'outside the pale'?I'm sure that any person so qualified would be acceptable by the
Passport Office. Even I have countersigned passport applications and photographs for people I know or knew (and I am not a graduate in engineering).
Passport application countersigners do not have to be in, or retired
from, a profession.
JNugent wrote:
Passport application countersigners do not have to be in, or retired
from, a profession.
Usually lawyers (professionally bound not to make false statements), doctors (who are likely to know applicants)
and elected officials (e.g. MP's,
councillors - ibid). I signed one for a neighbour's [Asian] son's first adult passport. Back came a letter from the passport office checking I had signed it and asking how long I had known him - "since he was in nappies" was the reply.
It was, but you were asked to look at the graphs based on published >>>evidence [and implicitly retract your support for Schapp's false >>>statement)I thought 1984 was fiction, why do the thought police feel it is >>appropriate to ask me to change my views?
No one is asking you to change your views, although if you looked at the >evidence and admitted that you don't have any for your view then
rationally you might.
Again no need to read all the long words and complex arguments in the
article just look at the pictures, sorry graphs.
NO! Remoaners keep saying that IT WASN'T A VOTE TO STAY IN THE EU, it wasOur independence from the EU (which we didn't vote to join)In the very first UK wide referendum in 1975 it was >2:1 to stay in.
a vote to remain in the Common Market and I voted "yes".
1. It WAS the first UK wide referendum in 1975, at the time unprecedented.
Brexiteers always say there should have been one before joining, but there never had previously (e.g. joining Nato or UN, invading Suez, declaring war on Germany twice etc...)
2. It was >2:1 in favour.
3. I did NOT say what the vote was for, but it was to stay in the European >Economic Community.
4. The European Union, superseding the Community, did not come into being >until 1993, continued membership of that was ratified in Parliament.
Good luck to them, your arrogance in trying to change what I think is >>astonishing.
Agreed, it is very difficult to change the view of prejudiced people...
Leavers, Trump and Putin all spread lies about Brexit on social media to >swing opinion ahead of the referendum - successfully alas. The government >and Brextremists are now desperately trying to stop the truth of the
failure of Brexit being publicised, of course people who complain online >about empty shelves, gifts held up in customs, queues in Kent and at
foreign airports and all the myriad of problems created by Brexit are
accused of being propagandists and the BBC attacked as biased.
Clearly the almost complete absence of publicity on the benefits of Brexit >(and certainly any truthful coverage) also tells you all you need to know >about how it is going.
Again no need to read all the long words and complex arguments in the article just look at the pictures, sorry graphs.
On 10/06/2022 in message <2e65c804-09b7-48c3-a855-033131bfb078n@googlegroups.com> R. Mark Clayton wrote:
It was, but you were asked to look at the graphs based on published
evidence [and implicitly retract your support for Schapp's false
statement)
I thought 1984 was fiction, why do the thought police feel it is
appropriate to ask me to change my views?
No one is asking you to change your views, although if you looked at
the evidence and admitted that you don't have any for your view then
rationally you might.
That is incorrect, there are a couple of people in here (including you
in the above statement) who feel I should read something or other and
change my view as a consequence. Perhaps you should Google "view or
opinion", you may find it interesting.
Again no need to read all the long words and complex arguments in the
article just look at the pictures, sorry graphs.
This is (at least) the second offensive remark you have posted because I
have a different view to you, my view is mine and you are welcome to
disagree with it but I have a right to it and you do not have a right to
ask me to change it.
NO! Remoaners keep saying that IT WASN'T A VOTE TO STAY IN THE EU, itOur independence from the EU (which we didn't vote to join)In the very first UK wide referendum in 1975 it was >2:1 to stay in.
was
a vote to remain in the Common Market and I voted "yes".
1. It WAS the first UK wide referendum in 1975, at the time
unprecedented. Brexiteers always say there should have been one
before joining, but there never had previously (e.g. joining Nato or
UN, invading Suez, declaring war on Germany twice etc...)
2. It was >2:1 in favour.
3. I did NOT say what the vote was for, but it was to stay in the
European Economic Community.
4. The European Union, superseding the Community, did not come into
being until 1993, continued membership of that was ratified in
Parliament.
Thank you, that my recollection. I voted to stay in the Common Market
but there was no vote on joining the EU, just the referendum to leave it.
Good luck to them, your arrogance in trying to change what I think is
astonishing.
Agreed, it is very difficult to change the view of prejudiced people...
And another insult see above.
Leavers, Trump and Putin all spread lies about Brexit on social media
to swing opinion ahead of the referendum - successfully alas. The
government and Brextremists are now desperately trying to stop the
truth of the failure of Brexit being publicised, of course people who
complain online about empty shelves, gifts held up in customs, queues
in Kent and at foreign airports and all the myriad of problems created
by Brexit are accused of being propagandists and the BBC attacked as
biased.
As I have said several times you really, really, can't believe marketing puff.
Clearly the almost complete absence of publicity on the benefits of
Brexit (and certainly any truthful coverage) also tells you all you
need to know about how it is going.
It's going very well in my view, I have no wish to try and change your
view as that would be rude, arrogant and offensive.
Just going by hearsay as I do not look at the tabloids.
I wonder if "BATC" would have worked?
Again no need to read all the long words and complex arguments in
the article just look at the pictures, sorry graphs.
This is (at least) the second offensive remark you have posted
because I have a different view to you, my view is mine and you
are welcome to disagree with it but I have a right to it and you
do not have a right to ask me to change it.
In article <xn0niy49wideoui01i@news.individual.net>,
Jeff Gaines <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Again no need to read all the long words and complex arguments in
the article just look at the pictures, sorry graphs.
This is (at least) the second offensive remark you have posted
because I have a different view to you, my view is mine and you
are welcome to disagree with it but I have a right to it and you
do not have a right to ask me to change it.
I'm afraid the liberal left have a problem. They cannot tolerate or comprehend people having a different opinion to them. They can't cope
with it at all. All of them quickly start to use insulting language
they simply can't resist or control themselves.
Jim Lesurf gave us "the Dinosuars of the DUP" and JJ, I've lost count
of the number of people he's call a bigot.
Or the best from the current conversation came from Brian G who gave
us "the stinking turd in humanoid form know as "Farage"
All because someone has a different opinion to them.
They have no shame about it either, I've seen the left in Parliament
with their faces all screwed up as bile screams from their mouths.
Absolutely dripping with hate.
The irony is that it's also the left that have these organisations
trying to shut down anyone they disagree with whilst claiming they're
doing this to fight hate.
In reality, hate is a horrible characteristic almost always only
found in the left. I can't recall hate coming from the right at all.
This is yet another reason why I think the left abandoned reason and rationality in favour of religion and ideology.
Did you know that the number of unemployed is now about equal to the
number of job vacancies? Time for the unemployed to get on their bikes.
On 10/06/2022 in message
<2e65c804-09b7-48c3...@googlegroups.com> R. Mark Clayton
wrote:
Again no need to read all the long words and complex arguments in the >article just look at the pictures, sorry graphs.This is (at least) the second offensive remark you have posted because I
have a different view to you, my view is mine and you are welcome to
disagree with it but I have a right to it and you do not have a right to
ask me to change it.
NO! Remoaners keep saying that IT WASN'T A VOTE TO STAY IN THE EU, it was >>a vote to remain in the Common Market and I voted "yes".Our independence from the EU (which we didn't vote to join)In the very first UK wide referendum in 1975 it was >2:1 to stay in.
1. It WAS the first UK wide referendum in 1975, at the time unprecedented.Thank you, that my recollection. I voted to stay in the Common Market but there was no vote on joining the EU, just the referendum to leave it.
Brexiteers always say there should have been one before joining, but there never had previously (e.g. joining Nato or UN, invading Suez, declaring war on Germany twice etc...)
2. It was >2:1 in favour.
3. I did NOT say what the vote was for, but it was to stay in the European >Economic Community.
4. The European Union, superseding the Community, did not come into being >until 1993, continued membership of that was ratified in Parliament.
Good luck to them, your arrogance in trying to change what I think is >>astonishing.
Agreed, it is very difficult to change the view of prejudiced people...And another insult see above.
Leavers, Trump and Putin all spread lies about Brexit on social media to >swing opinion ahead of the referendum - successfully alas. The government >and Brextremists are now desperately trying to stop the truth of the >failure of Brexit being publicised, of course people who complain online >about empty shelves, gifts held up in customs, queues in Kent and at >foreign airports and all the myriad of problems created by Brexit are >accused of being propagandists and the BBC attacked as biased.As I have said several times you really, really, can't believe marketing puff.
Clearly the almost complete absence of publicity on the benefits of Brexit >(and certainly any truthful coverage) also tells you all you need to know >about how it is going.It's going very well in my view, I have no wish to try and change your
view as that would be rude, arrogant and offensive.
--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
640k ought to be enough for anyone.
(Bill Gates, 1981)
On 10/06/2022 09:56, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
Again no need to read all the long words and complex arguments in the article just look at the pictures, sorry graphs.Though I believe the Grauniad, like the Liberals, have a history of
using dodgy graphs.
Just going by hearsay as I do not look at the tabloids.
On 08/03/2022 20:52, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 08/03/2022 17:12, Java Jive wrote:
Doubtless you can read Wikipedia as well as me. His is clearly not an
English name, and has been suggested to be French Huguenot in origin,
but even if it's just the two great-great-grandparents, that still makes >>> his lying about Europe somewhat hypocritical, don't you think?
He didn't lie about Europe, because his beef was with the EU and not
the member states themselves.
The EU is part of Europe, so in lying about the EU, he is inevitably
lying about Europe as well.
Again no need to read all the long words and complex arguments in the >article just look at the pictures, sorry graphs.
This is (at least) the second offensive remark you have posted because I
have a different view to you, my view is mine and you are welcome to
disagree with it but I have a right to it and you do not have a right to
ask me to change it.
Brian has never expressed politically leaning opinions that I can
recall, I am not left wing, Jim and R Mark Clayton will doubtless speak
for themselves, but all that is irrelevant to the real problem here,
which is your and others' consistent failure to support any of your
claims with verifiable *EVIDENCE*.
In article <xn0niy49wideoui01i@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines
<jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Again no need to read all the long words and complex arguments in the >article just look at the pictures, sorry graphs.
This is (at least) the second offensive remark you have posted because
I have a different view to you, my view is mine and you are welcome to disagree with it but I have a right to it and you do not have a right
to ask me to change it.
I'm afraid the liberal left have a problem. They cannot tolerate or comprehend people having a different opinion to them.
Jim Lesurf gave us "the Dinosuars of the DUP" and JJ,
I've lost count of the number of people he's call a bigot.
They have no shame about it either, I've seen the left in Parliament
with their faces all screwed up as bile screams from their mouths.
Absolutely dripping with hate.
The irony is that it's also the left that have these organisations
trying to shut down anyone they disagree with whilst claiming they're
doing this to fight hate.
In reality, hate is a horrible characteristic almost always only found
in the left. I can't recall hate coming from the right at all.
This is yet another reason why I think the left abandoned reason and rationality in favour of religion and ideology.
In article <xn0niy49wideoui01i@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines ><jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Again no need to read all the long words and complex arguments in the >>>article just look at the pictures, sorry graphs.
This is (at least) the second offensive remark you have posted because I >>have a different view to you, my view is mine and you are welcome to >>disagree with it but I have a right to it and you do not have a right to >>ask me to change it.
Slippery and selective use of "right" detected. :-)
Particularly as your comment implicity conflicts with your assertions. If
you have a "right" to express a "view", so does he - in that case his view >being what he wrote.
On 07/06/2022 11:09, Jeff Gaines wrote:
I have expressed my view and people can take it or leave it or do
you feel that others have a right to tell me how to think?
No-one's trying to tell you what to think, they are merely trying to
persuade not to post lies in public.
On 11/06/2022 in message <59f6ccdebanoise@audiomisc.co.uk> Jim Lesurf
wrote:
Particularly as your comment implicity conflicts with your assertions. If
you have a "right" to express a "view", so does he - in that case his
view
being what he wrote.
Absolutely right. However, I am not rude and arrogant enough to feel I
have a right to criticise anybody else's view. I am getting quite
concerned about your response and one or two other responses. To some
extent I can put it down to the snowflake generation, brought up with no discipline and participating in non-competitive games so not ready to
face the realities of life but now I am beginning to wonder if they are
all die hard bigots, or being paid to spout left wing drivel.
Particularly as your comment implicity conflicts with your assertions.
If you have a "right" to express a "view", so does he - in that case
his view being what he wrote.
Absolutely right. However, I am not rude and arrogant enough to feel I
have a right to criticise anybody else's view.
LOL! Think of a well-known phrase involving pots and kettles. FTR I
was brought up to play competitive games, and was in the Rugby 1st XV at preparatory school, but it's the three of you who are the problem here,
Crumbs! You are posh!:-) I always dodged 'games'... often by the method of not going to school. And the playground of my primary school wasn't big enough for more than a kick-about of whatever ball someone might have.
Absolutely right. However, I am not rude and arrogant enough to feel I
have a right to criticise anybody else's view.
The problem is with with your use of "view" to include "assertions
presented as fact but which are - often incorrect - belief".
On 13/06/2022 in message <59f7d30354noise@audiomisc.co.uk> Jim Lesurf
wrote:
Absolutely right. However, I am not rude and arrogant enough to feel I
have a right to criticise anybody else's view.
The problem is with with your use of "view" to include "assertions
presented as fact but which are - often incorrect - belief".
If you think I have done that then please let me have an example(s).
On 13/06/2022 in message <t8792l$i79$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
On 13/06/2022 10:03, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 13/06/2022 in message <59f7d30354noise@audiomisc.co.uk> Jim Lesurf
wrote:
The problem is with with your use of "view" to include "assertions
presented as fact but which are - often incorrect - belief".
If you think I have done that then please let me have an example(s).
Previously in the thread you were given by myself examples of 'views',
which I and many others would justifiably call lies, posted by you
that multiple independent lines of well-established information,
including from a government department, have proven to be false.
So stop repeating previously failed tactics in an attempt to prolong
an argument that was already lost many days ago.
Views and opinions cannot be "lies" by definition
anyway I was
addressing the organ grinder, not the monkey.
On 13/06/2022 10:03, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 13/06/2022 in message <59f7d30354noise@audiomisc.co.uk> Jim Lesurf >>wrote:
Absolutely right. However, I am not rude and arrogant enough to feel I >>>>have a right to criticise anybody else's view.
The problem is with with your use of "view" to include "assertions >>>presented as fact but which are - often incorrect - belief".
If you think I have done that then please let me have an example(s).
Previously in the thread you were given by myself examples of 'views',
which I and many others would justifiably call lies, posted by you that >multiple independent lines of well-established information, including from
a government department, have proven to be false.
So stop repeating previously failed tactics in an attempt to prolong an >argument that was already lost many days ago.
Jeff Gaines wrote:
Java Jive wrote:
Jeff Gaines wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
The problem is with with your use of "view" to include "assertions
presented as fact but which are - often incorrect - belief".
If you think I have done that then please let me have an example(s).
Previously in the thread you were given by myself examples of
'views', which I and many others would justifiably call lies, posted
by you that multiple independent lines of well-established
information, including from a government department, have proven to
be false.
So stop repeating previously failed tactics in an attempt to prolong
an argument that was already lost many days ago.
Views and opinions cannot be "lies" by definition
They are by definition lies if they are publicly expressed after they
have been shown to be false, which is exactly what you persist in doing.
anyway I was addressing the organ grinder, not the monkey.
You are rapidly becoming a pathetic Bob-LieToThem-style HYPOSHITE! Who
was it up thread whingeing about being insulted?
Views and opinions cannot be "lies" by definition
They are by definition lies if they are publicly expressed after they have >been shown to be false, which is exactly what you persist in doing.
anyway I was addressing the organ grinder, not the monkey.
You are rapidly becoming a pathetic Bob-LieToThem-style HYPOSHITE! Who
was it up thread whingeing about being insulted?
On 13/06/2022 in message <t87f6k$f7v$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:[Jeff Gaines has broken the quoting again, he wrote:]
Views and opinions cannot be "lies" by definition
They are by definition lies if they are publicly expressed after they
have been shown to be false, which is exactly what you persist in doing.
You don't seem to understand what a view or opinion is, they cannot be
false or wrong. All you can do is disagree with another person's opinion.
anyway I was addressing the organ grinder, not the monkey.
You are rapidly becoming a pathetic Bob-LieToThem-style HYPOSHITE!
Who was it up thread whingeing about being insulted?
Oh, you don't like it when it's addressed to you then?
Views and opinions cannot be "lies" by definition
They are by definition lies if they are publicly expressed after they
have been shown to be false, which is exactly what you persist in doing.
Views and opinions cannot be "lies" by definition
In article <xn0nj2h5omusm8b002@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines ><jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Views and opinions cannot be "lies" by definition
The can if the person spounting them actually - despite apprearances -
knows they are false. If they don't, they may merely be stubbornly deluded
or a dim bulb. Take yer pick. :-)
Jim
This indicates your problem (and that of your monkey) exactly. Views or >opinions cannot by definition be false or wrong.
In article <xn0nj541tph7oo500g@news.individual.net>,
Jeff Gaines <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
This indicates your problem (and that of your monkey) exactly. Views or >>opinions cannot by definition be false or wrong.
Sounds like you have your own special definitions.
In article <xn0nj56jlpkoe2700h@news.individual.net>,
Jeff Gaines <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
This indicates your problem (and that of your monkey) exactly. Views or >>>> opinions cannot by definition be false or wrong.
Sounds like you have your own special definitions.
Nope but I used to listen to the marketing people very closely
It's my opinion that you're nuts. Is that wrong?
This indicates your problem (and that of your monkey) exactly. Views or >>>opinions cannot by definition be false or wrong.
Sounds like you have your own special definitions.
Nope but I used to listen to the marketing people very closely
In article <xn0nj541tph7oo500g@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
This indicates your problem (and that of your monkey) exactly. Views
or opinions cannot by definition be false or wrong.
Sounds like you have your own special definitions.
It's my opinion that you're nuts. Is that wrong?
On 15/06/2022 in message <t8cfj6$2uqk$1@macpro.inf.ed.ac.uk> Richard
Tobin wrote:
It's my opinion that you're nuts. Is that wrong?
Probably going that way but you're perfectly entitled to hold that
opinion which is the point I have made time and time again but there are
some people who don't want to understand.
Views or opinions cannot by definition be false or wrong. You, and others, can
disagree with them but saying the are wrong is ludicrous. Do a bit of research, start with some definitions.
On 15/06/2022 10:22, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Views or opinions cannot by definition be false or wrong. You, and others, >>can disagree with them but saying the are wrong is ludicrous. Do a bit of
research, start with some definitions.
Chambers Dictionary has views and opinions as what seems to be true, a >judgement or estimation. Nothing there or any other Dictionary to suggest >that they cannot be false or wrong, though it would depend on context. An >aesthetic judgement for example is unlikely to be shown false or true. On
the other hand, your opinion above is false and this statement is true.
On 15/06/2022 22:48, Jeff Gaines wrote:
I still have my paper copy of Chambers, cost 27/6 way back when. Anyway
the online version says:
"opinion noun 1 a belief or judgement which seems likely to be true, but >>which is not based on proof. 2 (usually opinion on or about something)
what one thinks about it. 3 a professional judgement given by an expert
• medical opinion. 4 estimation or appreciation • has a high opinion
of himself. a matter of opinion a matter about which people have
different opinions. be of the opinion that ... to think or believe that >>....
ETYMOLOGY: 13c: from Latin opinion belief, from opinari to believe."
The first and most usual meaning is the first above, a "judgement which
seems likely to be true".
As you can see an opinion cannot be judged true or false because it is >>exactly what it says, an opinion.
You haven't grasped the paradox that for that opinion to have any meaning
it must be true.
I still have my paper copy of Chambers, cost 27/6 way back when. Anyway
the online version says:
"opinion noun 1 a belief or judgement which seems likely to be true, but which is not based on proof. 2 (usually opinion on or about something)
what one thinks about it. 3 a professional judgement given by an expert
• medical opinion. 4 estimation or appreciation • has a high opinion of himself. a matter of opinion a matter about which people have different opinions. be of the opinion that ... to think or believe that ....
ETYMOLOGY: 13c: from Latin opinion belief, from opinari to believe."
As you can see an opinion cannot be judged true or false because it is exactly what it says, an opinion.
On 15/06/2022 in message <t8dlqs$k8f$1@dont-email.me> Lew wrote:
On 15/06/2022 22:48, Jeff Gaines wrote:
I still have my paper copy of Chambers, cost 27/6 way back when.
Anyway the online version says:
"opinion noun 1 a belief or judgement which seems likely to be true,
but which is not based on proof. 2 (usually opinion on or about
something) what one thinks about it. 3 a professional judgement given
by an expert • medical opinion. 4 estimation or appreciation • has a >>> high opinion of himself. a matter of opinion a matter about which
people have different opinions. be of the opinion that ... to think
or believe that ....
ETYMOLOGY: 13c: from Latin opinion belief, from opinari to believe."
The first and most usual meaning is the first above, a "judgement
which seems likely to be true".
As you can see an opinion cannot be judged true or false because it
is exactly what it says, an opinion.
You haven't grasped the paradox that for that opinion to have any
meaning it must be true.
No, that's your problem,
On 15/06/2022 in message <t8davo$6np$1@dont-email.me> Lew wrote:
On 15/06/2022 10:22, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Views or opinions cannot by definition be false or wrong. You, and
others, can disagree with them but saying the are wrong is
ludicrous. Do a bit of research, start with some definitions.
Chambers Dictionary has views and opinions as what seems to be true, a
judgement or estimation. Nothing there or any other Dictionary to
suggest that they cannot be false or wrong, though it would depend on
context. An aesthetic judgement for example is unlikely to be shown
false or true. On the other hand, your opinion above is false and this
statement is true.
I still have my paper copy of Chambers, cost 27/6 way back when. Anyway
the online version says:
"opinion noun 1 a belief or judgement which seems likely to be true, but which is not based on proof. 2 (usually opinion on or about something)
what one thinks about it. 3 a professional judgement given by an expert
• medical opinion. 4 estimation or appreciation • has a high opinion of himself. a matter of opinion a matter about which people have different opinions. be of the opinion that ... to think or believe that ....
ETYMOLOGY: 13c: from Latin opinion belief, from opinari to believe."
As you can see an opinion cannot be judged true or false because it is exactly what it says, an opinion. Really unless you are willing to
understand that you are just wasting everybody's time.
Yawn, more bullshit. You expressed an 'opinion' or 'view', it doesn't
matter what it is called, that was then proved to be untrue, and then >restated that 'opinion' or 'view' as if it were true. That is lying in >anyone's dictionary, even yours.
Yawn, more bullshit. You expressed an 'opinion' or 'view', it doesn't
matter what it is called, that was then proved to be untrue, and then >restated that 'opinion' or 'view' as if it were true. That is lying in >anyone's dictionary, even yours.
You stated an opinion, it was then shown to be untrue, and you then
restated it as if it were true - that is lying.
On 15/06/2022 10:22, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Views or opinions cannot by definition be false or wrong. You, and
others, can disagree with them but saying the are wrong is ludicrous.
Do a bit of research, start with some definitions.
Chambers Dictionary has views and opinions as what seems to be true, a judgement or estimation. Nothing there or any other Dictionary to
suggest that they cannot be false or wrong, though it would depend on context. An aesthetic judgement for example is unlikely to be shown
false or true. On the other hand, your opinion above is false and this statement is true.
On 15/06/2022 22:48, Jeff Gaines wrote:
I still have my paper copy of Chambers, cost 27/6 way back when.
Anyway the online version says:
"opinion noun 1 a belief or judgement which seems likely to be true,
but which is not based on proof. 2 (usually opinion on or about
something) what one thinks about it. 3 a professional judgement given
by an expert • medical opinion. 4 estimation or appreciation • has a
high opinion of himself. a matter of opinion a matter about which
people have different opinions. be of the opinion that ... to think or
believe that ....
ETYMOLOGY: 13c: from Latin opinion belief, from opinari to believe."
The first and most usual meaning is the first above, a "judgement which
seems likely to be true".
As you can see an opinion cannot be judged true or false because it is
exactly what it says, an opinion.
You haven't grasped the paradox that for that opinion to have any
meaning it must be true.
On 16/06/2022 in message <t8drjs$jcu$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
You stated an opinion, it was then shown to be untrue, and you then
restated it as if it were true - that is lying.
Until you understand that an opinion cannot be untrue you are wasting everybody's time.
On 16/06/2022 08:33 am, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 16/06/2022 in message <t8drjs$jcu$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
You stated an opinion, it was then shown to be untrue, and you then
restated it as if it were true - that is lying.
Until you understand that an opinion cannot be untrue you are wasting
everybody's time.
Only if you let him.
DFTFs.
On 15/06/2022 14:36, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/06/2022 in message <t8cfj6$2uqk$1@macpro.inf.ed.ac.uk> Richard
Tobin wrote:
It's my opinion that you're nuts. Is that wrong?
Probably going that way but you're perfectly entitled to hold that
opinion which is the point I have made time and time again but there
are some people who don't want to understand.
There are some people who understand perfectly well that wilfullyt
voicing opinions or views that don't accord with reality is just lying.
On 16/06/2022 08:33 am, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 16/06/2022 in message <t8drjs$jcu$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
You stated an opinion, it was then shown to be untrue, and you then >>>restated it as if it were true - that is lying.
Until you understand that an opinion cannot be untrue you are wasting >>everybody's time.
Only if you let him.
DFTFs.
On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 00:53:23 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
Yawn, more bullshit. You expressed an 'opinion' or 'view', it doesn't
matter what it is called, that was then proved to be untrue, and then
restated that 'opinion' or 'view' as if it were true. That is lying in
anyone's dictionary, even yours.
In my dictionary a lie is an intentionally false statement, or a
deception. A deliberate deception is not quite the same as simply misunderstanding something and getting it wrong.
On 16/06/2022 in message <t8drjs$jcu$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
You stated an opinion, it was then shown to be untrue, and you then
restated it as if it were true - that is lying.
Until you understand that an opinion cannot be untrue you are wasting everybody's time.
On 16/06/2022 in message <t8drdl$ien$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
Yawn, more bullshit. You expressed an 'opinion' or 'view', it doesn't
matter what it is called, that was then proved to be untrue, and then
restated that 'opinion' or 'view' as if it were true. That is lying
in anyone's dictionary, even yours.
Until you understand that an opinion cannot be untrue you are wasting everybody's time.
We had a dictionary at home (collected in fortnightly instalments [1])
which defined jazz as "a noisy, discordant kind of music"
On 16/06/2022 06:50, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 00:53:23 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
Yawn, more bullshit. You expressed an 'opinion' or 'view', it doesn't
matter what it is called, that was then proved to be untrue, and then
restated that 'opinion' or 'view' as if it were true. That is lying in
anyone's dictionary, even yours.
In my dictionary a lie is an intentionally false statement, or a
deception. A deliberate deception is not quite the same as simply
misunderstanding something and getting it wrong.
That would be fine if he just voiced an opinion which was then shown to
be untrue, and never voiced it again thereafter - nobody would call
that lying. The problem is that, despite being shown, I think it was
around 13, links to information that shown his opinion to be false, he
then insisted on restating it, and that is lying.
On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 12:07:34 +0100, Max Demian
<max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
We had a dictionary at home (collected in fortnightly instalments [1])
which defined jazz as "a noisy, discordant kind of music"
To my ears, some of it is.
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 16/06/2022 06:50, Roderick Stewart wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
Yawn, more bullshit. You expressed an 'opinion' or 'view', it doesn't >>>> matter what it is called, that was then proved to be untrue, and then
restated that 'opinion' or 'view' as if it were true. That is lying in >>>> anyone's dictionary, even yours.
In my dictionary a lie is an intentionally false statement, or a
deception. A deliberate deception is not quite the same as simply
misunderstanding something and getting it wrong.
That would be fine if he just voiced an opinion which was then shown to
be untrue, and never voiced it again thereafter - nobody would call
that lying. The problem is that, despite being shown, I think it was
around 13, links to information that shown his opinion to be false, he
then insisted on restating it, and that is lying.
Some people continue to believe things that are untrue despite
rational explanations, but that doesn't mean they are not sincere in
what they believe. If a lie is a deliberate untruth, it cannot be
possible to be sincere, and a liar, at the same time.
Why does an opinion have to have meaning for anyone but the opinion-holder?
On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 13:32:52 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
On 16/06/2022 06:50, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 00:53:23 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
Yawn, more bullshit. You expressed an 'opinion' or 'view', it doesn't >>>> matter what it is called, that was then proved to be untrue, and then
restated that 'opinion' or 'view' as if it were true. That is lying in >>>> anyone's dictionary, even yours.
In my dictionary a lie is an intentionally false statement, or a
deception. A deliberate deception is not quite the same as simply
misunderstanding something and getting it wrong.
That would be fine if he just voiced an opinion which was then shown to
be untrue, and never voiced it again thereafter - nobody would call
that lying. The problem is that, despite being shown, I think it was
around 13, links to information that shown his opinion to be false, he
then insisted on restating it, and that is lying.
Some people continue to believe things that are untrue despite
rational explanations, but that doesn't mean they are not sincere in
what they believe. If a lie is a deliberate untruth, it cannot be
possible to be sincere, and a liar, at the same time.
On 16/06/2022 08:34, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 16/06/2022 in message <t8drdl$ien$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
Yawn, more bullshit. You expressed an 'opinion' or 'view', itUntil you understand that an opinion cannot be untrue you are
doesn't matter what it is called, that was then proved to be untrue,
and then restated that 'opinion' or 'view' as if it were true. That
is lying in anyone's dictionary, even yours.
wasting everybody's time.
Until you understand that yours was shown to be untrue by others
supplying contrary *EVIDENCE*, you are wasting everybody's time.
On 16/06/2022 15:50, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 13:32:52 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
On 16/06/2022 06:50, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 00:53:23 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
Yawn, more bullshit. You expressed an 'opinion' or 'view', it doesn't >>>>> matter what it is called, that was then proved to be untrue, and then >>>>> restated that 'opinion' or 'view' as if it were true. That is lying in >>>>> anyone's dictionary, even yours.
In my dictionary a lie is an intentionally false statement, or a
deception. A deliberate deception is not quite the same as simply
misunderstanding something and getting it wrong.
That would be fine if he just voiced an opinion which was then shown to
be untrue, and never voiced it again thereafter - nobody would call
that lying. The problem is that, despite being shown, I think it was
around 13, links to information that shown his opinion to be false, he
then insisted on restating it, and that is lying.
Some people continue to believe things that are untrue despite
rational explanations, but that doesn't mean they are not sincere in
what they believe. If a lie is a deliberate untruth, it cannot be
possible to be sincere, and a liar, at the same time.
I'm not interested in the untestable personal inner psychology of people
who lie in public, only in the externally testable fact that they lie in >public.
At 18, I tended to side with him (it's a great story, after all, to be
able to tell the workers that they'll be better off in some alternative >reality).
On 16/06/2022 03:52 pm, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 12:07:34 +0100, Max Demian
<max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
We had a dictionary at home (collected in fortnightly instalments [1])
which defined jazz as "a noisy, discordant kind of music"
To my ears, some of it is.
You're thinking of reggae or drum and bass, shirley?
On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 16:20:52 +0100, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm>
wrote:
On 16/06/2022 03:52 pm, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 12:07:34 +0100, Max Demian
<max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
We had a dictionary at home (collected in fortnightly instalments [1]) >>>> which defined jazz as "a noisy, discordant kind of music"
To my ears, some of it is.
You're thinking of reggae or drum and bass, shirley?
I don't know what it's called, but I know when I don't like something.
I never really understood jazz, or why it was routinely to be found on
the BBC Third Programme (later Radio 3) but there it was, and labelled
as such, so I guess that's what it must be. Even though I don't know
all their names, I can tell there are several different types of jazz,
some of them worse than others.
"opinion noun 1 a belief or judgement which seems likely to be true, but which is not based on proof. 2 (usually opinion on or about something)
what one thinks about it. 3 a professional judgement given by an expert
* medical opinion. 4 estimation or appreciation * has a high opinion of himself. a matter of opinion a matter about which people have different opinions. be of the opinion that ... to think or believe that ....
ETYMOLOGY: 13c: from Latin opinion belief, from opinari to believe."
As you can see an opinion cannot be judged true or false because it is exactly what it says, an opinion. Really unless you are willing to
understand that you are just wasting everybody's time.
You haven't grasped the paradox that for that opinion to have any
meaning it must be true.
You haven't grasped the paradox that for that opinion to have any
meaning it must be true.
No, that's your problem, you won't accept that that is incorrect.
In my dictionary a lie is an intentionally false statement, or a
deception. A deliberate deception is not quite the same as simply misunderstanding something and getting it wrong.
On 16/06/2022 in message <t8drdl$ien$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
Yawn, more bullshit. You expressed an 'opinion' or 'view', it doesn't >matter what it is called, that was then proved to be untrue, and then >restated that 'opinion' or 'view' as if it were true. That is lying in
anyone's dictionary, even yours.
Until you understand that an opinion cannot be untrue you are wasting everybody's time.
As you can see an opinion cannot be judged true or false because it is >>exactly what it says, an opinion. Really unless you are willing to >>understand that you are just wasting everybody's time.
The snag being that in reality an asserted 'opinion' or 'view' may be
vacuous nonsense. i.e. not true.
On 16/06/2022 in message <59f95f5b79noise@audiomisc.co.uk> Jim Lesurf
wrote:
As you can see an opinion cannot be judged true or false because it is
exactly what it says, an opinion. Really unless you are willing to
understand that you are just wasting everybody's time.
The snag being that in reality an asserted 'opinion' or 'view' may be
vacuous nonsense. i.e. not true.
That is incorrect and your inability to understand it is what has cause
this diversion, an opinion is just that and you can certainly disagree
with it but opinions cannot be wrong.
I said I would stop posting on the subject as it's annoying the group so
I'll leave you to research "opinion" and "view", it may help stop you
making a twat of yourself again, who knows!
On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 17:29:04 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
On 16/06/2022 15:50, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 13:32:52 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
On 16/06/2022 06:50, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 00:53:23 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> >>>>> wrote:
Yawn, more bullshit. You expressed an 'opinion' or 'view', it doesn't >>>>>> matter what it is called, that was then proved to be untrue, and then >>>>>> restated that 'opinion' or 'view' as if it were true. That is lying in >>>>>> anyone's dictionary, even yours.
In my dictionary a lie is an intentionally false statement, or a
deception. A deliberate deception is not quite the same as simply
misunderstanding something and getting it wrong.
That would be fine if he just voiced an opinion which was then shown to >>>> be untrue, and never voiced it again thereafter - nobody would call
that lying. The problem is that, despite being shown, I think it was
around 13, links to information that shown his opinion to be false, he >>>> then insisted on restating it, and that is lying.
Some people continue to believe things that are untrue despite
rational explanations, but that doesn't mean they are not sincere in
what they believe. If a lie is a deliberate untruth, it cannot be
possible to be sincere, and a liar, at the same time.
I'm not interested in the untestable personal inner psychology of people
who lie in public, only in the externally testable fact that they lie in
public.
Perhaps I haven't made my point clearly enough, because you are
definitely missing it. For an untruth to be a lie, it has to be
deliberate, with the intention of deceiving, so a person who says
something untrue because they sincerely believe it is not lying.
If they're wrong they're still wrong of course, but they're not lying.
If you want your usual *EVIDENCE!*, check the OED.
On 17/06/2022 10:20, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 16/06/2022 in message <59f95f5b79noise@audiomisc.co.uk> Jim Lesurf >>wrote:
As you can see an opinion cannot be judged true or false because it is >>>>exactly what it says, an opinion. Really unless you are willing to >>>>understand that you are just wasting everybody's time.
The snag being that in reality an asserted 'opinion' or 'view' may be >>>vacuous nonsense. i.e. not true.
That is incorrect and your inability to understand it is what has cause >>this diversion, an opinion is just that and you can certainly disagree
with it but opinions cannot be wrong.
I said I would stop posting on the subject as it's annoying the group so >>I'll leave you to research "opinion" and "view", it may help stop you >>making a twat of yourself again, who knows!
Yes, you said that several days ago, but here you still are trying to
argue a point that no-one else agrees with, because it's obvious to
everyone else here that some opinions can be checked against reality and >found to be untrue, which is what happened to yours way up thread. The >problem since has been your juvenile and dishonest refusal to accept this.
On 17/06/2022 in message <t8hksg$vlm$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
On 17/06/2022 10:20, Jeff Gaines wrote:
I said I would stop posting on the subject as it's annoying the group
so I'll leave you to research "opinion" and "view", it may help stop
you making a twat of yourself again, who knows!
Yes, you said that several days ago, but here you still are trying to
argue a point that no-one else agrees with, because it's obvious to
everyone else here that some opinions can be checked against reality
and found to be untrue, which is what happened to yours way up
thread. The problem since has been your juvenile and dishonest
refusal to accept this.
The problem is your lack of understanding of what "view" or "opinion"
means and until you do you are just wasting our time.
That would be fine if he just voiced an opinion which was then shown to
be untrue, and never voiced it again thereafter - nobody would call
that lying. The problem is that, despite being shown, I think it was
around 13, links to information that shown his opinion to be false, he
then insisted on restating it, and that is lying.
It's very difficult to argue with facts against a religionist. And
socialism is a religion.
I never really understood jazz, or why it was routinely to be found on
the BBC Third Programme (later Radio 3) but there it was, and labelled
as such, so I guess that's what it must be. Even though I don't know all their names, I can tell there are several different types of jazz, some
of them worse than others.
Perhaps I haven't made my point clearly enough, because you are
definitely missing it.
In article <jh10q9Fe0clU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent ><jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
It's very difficult to argue with facts against a religionist. And
socialism is a religion.
..for some. Just as the "Free Market" is a religion for some. Ditton "Neo >liberalism", etc.
Many of the basis arguments, etc, of 'socialism' are OK. This is why, for >example, Macmillian continued to build social housing, etc, after WW2. >Despite being a Conservative he and his generation of Tories had been
though the war in a way that made them realise that social actions like the >housbuilding, improvements to education, etc, were desirable overall for
the population to make a more stable and good place to live.
Alas, as time passed the predictable 'tribal' effects returned and the rich >got back to doing what suited them as the poor got back to what seemed to >them the best responses when the rich had most of the power.
On 16/06/2022 in message <59f95f5b79noise@audiomisc.co.uk> Jim Lesurf
wrote:
As you can see an opinion cannot be judged true or false because it is >>exactly what it says, an opinion. Really unless you are willing to >>understand that you are just wasting everybody's time.
The snag being that in reality an asserted 'opinion' or 'view' may be >vacuous nonsense. i.e. not true.
That is incorrect and your inability to understand it is what has cause
this diversion, an opinion is just that and you can certainly disagree
with it but opinions cannot be wrong.
I said I would stop posting on the subject as it's annoying the group so
I'll leave you to research "opinion" and "view", it may help stop you
making a twat of yourself again, who knows!
The problem is your lack of understanding that you lost an argument
through the views or opinions that you expressed in it being shown to
depart from reality, and until you realise this you are just wasting our time.
On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 10:19:51 +0100, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk>
wrote:
In article <jh10q9Fe0clU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent ><jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
It's very difficult to argue with facts against a religionist. And
socialism is a religion.
..for some. Just as the "Free Market" is a religion for some. Ditton
"Neo liberalism", etc.
Many of the basis arguments, etc, of 'socialism' are OK. This is why,
for example, Macmillian continued to build social housing, etc, after
WW2. Despite being a Conservative he and his generation of Tories had
been though the war in a way that made them realise that social actions >like the housbuilding, improvements to education, etc, were desirable >overall for the population to make a more stable and good place to live.
Alas, as time passed the predictable 'tribal' effects returned and the
rich got back to doing what suited them as the poor got back to what
seemed to them the best responses when the rich had most of the power.
That's only your opinion.
That's only your opinion.
Supported by mere facts. :-)
I'd recommend reading the book "The Five Giants" on these topics. Most illuminating in terms of the results of various politicians/etc over many decades wrt Health Service, Education, Housing, etc, and the things the politicians said and did.
Jim
JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
It's very difficult to argue with facts against a religionist. And
socialism is a religion.
..for some. Just as the "Free Market" is a religion for some. Ditton "Neo liberalism", etc.
Many of the basis arguments, etc, of 'socialism' are OK. This is why, for example, Macmillian continued to build social housing, etc, after WW2. Despite being a Conservative he and his generation of Tories had been
though the war in a way that made them realise that social actions like the housbuilding, improvements to education, etc, were desirable overall for
the population to make a more stable and good place to live.
Alas, as time passed the predictable 'tribal' effects returned and the rich got back to doing what suited them as the poor got back to what seemed to them the best responses when the rich had most of the power.
On 17/06/2022 10:19 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
It's very difficult to argue with facts against a religionist. And
socialism is a religion.
..for some. Just as the "Free Market" is a religion for some. Ditton "Neo liberalism", etc.
Many of the basis arguments, etc, of 'socialism' are OK. This is why, for example, Macmillian continued to build social housing, etc, after WW2. Despite being a Conservative he and his generation of Tories had been though the war in a way that made them realise that social actions like the housbuilding, improvements to education, etc, were desirable overall for the population to make a more stable and good place to live.Building council houses probably looked good to all parties in the
immediate post-war era.
JNugent wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
It's very difficult to argue with facts against a religionist. And
socialism is a religion.
..for some. Just as the "Free Market" is a religion for some. Ditton "Neo >>> liberalism", etc.
Many of the basis arguments, etc, of 'socialism' are OK. This is why, for >>> example, Macmillian continued to build social housing, etc, after WW2.
Despite being a Conservative he and his generation of Tories had been
though the war in a way that made them realise that social actions like the >>> housbuilding, improvements to education, etc, were desirable overall for >>> the population to make a more stable and good place to live.
Building council houses probably looked good to all parties in the
immediate post-war era.
During the war there had been little construction (men were conscripted), poor maintenance and wholesale destruction by the Luftwaffe (~2M homes destroyed and many more damaged).
Rehousing those made homeless by enemy action was considered a state responsibility, AFAIK by all parties.
During the war there had been little construction (men were conscripted), poor maintenance and wholesale destruction by the Luftwaffe (~2M homes destroyed and many more damaged).
Rehousing those made homeless by enemy action was considered a state responsibility, AFAIK by all parties.
On 18/06/2022 15:18, Jim Lesurf wrote:
That's only your opinion.
Supported by mere facts. :-)
I'd recommend reading the book "The Five Giants" on these topics. Most illuminating in terms of the results of various politicians/etc over
many decades wrt Health Service, Education, Housing, etc, and the
things the politicians said and did.
Jim
The authors of books can select facts and figures and put a slant on
things.
e.g. the Government that did the most in terms of 'social' housebuilding
was Macmillan's Conservative one. Not Labour.
The eventual socially-corrosive and gerrymandering effects of carpeting
local authority territory with it would not have been so apparent.
williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
That's only your opinion.
Supported by mere facts. :-)
I'd recommend reading the book "The Five Giants" on these topics. Most
illuminating in terms of the results of various politicians/etc over
many decades wrt Health Service, Education, Housing, etc, and the
things the politicians said and did.
The authors of books can select facts and figures and put a slant on
things.
So can people who don't write books. :-)
However to find out about the book's content, the best way to make your
*own* mind about it is to read it. Some of the info may suprise a few.
e.g. the Government that did the most in terms of 'social' housebuilding
was Macmillan's Conservative one. Not Labour.
I appreciate, though, that some people avoid reading any book that may contain facts that clash with what they want to believe. Then say the book
- whose content they don't know - is a 'religion'. i.e. make up an excuse.
Labour Party politics was not then a religion. The party's leaders
tended to be sensible, down-to-earth, people.
But over the last fourteen-fifteen years, the Labour Party has been a different animal.
I have seen it written that post-war town planners did a lot more damage
than the Germans, knocking down buildings that could have been repaired
and replacing with very ugly structures.
Labour Party politics was not then a religion. The party's leaders
tended to be sensible, down-to-earth, people.
But over the last fourteen-fifteen years, the Labour Party has been a different animal.
On 21/06/2022 13:26, JNugent wrote:
Labour Party politics was not then a religion. The party's leaders
tended to be sensible, down-to-earth, people.
But over the last fourteen-fifteen years, the Labour Party has been a different animal.
Two great British institutions that have gone bad: The Labour Party and
the BBC.
The shame was that people weren't them moved to new housing *as a
community* but were scattered around the borough. Thus losing a lot of friendly community contacts and support.
In article <jhdrn8FieatU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
Labour Party politics was not then a religion. The party's leaders
tended to be sensible, down-to-earth, people.
But over the last fourteen-fifteen years, the Labour Party has been a
different animal.
Bit like the Tories then, who have become the puppets of kleptocracy and other 'rich mates'. To the point where BloJo has to fly to Ukraine to find
an audience that doesn't boo him!
Jim
In article <t8qbqs$rkd$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
I have seen it written that post-war town planners did a lot more damage
than the Germans, knocking down buildings that could have been repaired
and replacing with very ugly structures.
That may well have been true in some cases. However the house I was brought up in until about 10 years old was one of a set of similar houses that were best dealt with by demolition and replacement. I wasn't aware they were 'slums' at the time, but looking back, yes they were.
Outside loos with no lights and only accessible via an outside door, not
from the house. Coal celler under the stairs, resting on the bare ground.
My bedroom got a pile of snow along the *inside* of the window when it
snowed outside. When it rained I saw the damp patches on the ceiling caused by the leaks in the sagging roof of the terrace. etc.
The shame was that people weren't them moved to new housing *as a
community* but were scattered around the borough. Thus losing a lot of friendly community contacts and support.
Jim
That may well have been true in some cases. However the house I was
brought up in until about 10 years old was one of a set of similar
houses that were best dealt with by demolition and replacement. I
wasn't aware they were 'slums' at the time, but looking back, yes they were.
Outside loos with no lights and only accessible via an outside door,
not from the house. Coal celler under the stairs, resting on the bare ground. My bedroom got a pile of snow along the *inside* of the window
when it snowed outside. When it rained I saw the damp patches on the ceiling caused by the leaks in the sagging roof of the terrace. etc.
All of those things would have been easy (and relatively cheap) to
repair.
And the council wouldn't have managed to get their dirty mitts on the
land (the main objective in most cases).
In article <t8qbqs$rkd$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
I have seen it written that post-war town planners did a lot more damage
than the Germans, knocking down buildings that could have been repaired
and replacing with very ugly structures.
That may well have been true in some cases. However the house I was brought >up in until about 10 years old was one of a set of similar houses that were >best dealt with by demolition and replacement. I wasn't aware they were >'slums' at the time, but looking back, yes they were.
Outside loos with no lights and only accessible via an outside door, not
from the house. Coal celler under the stairs, resting on the bare ground.
My bedroom got a pile of snow along the *inside* of the window when it
snowed outside. When it rained I saw the damp patches on the ceiling caused >by the leaks in the sagging roof of the terrace. etc.
The shame was that people weren't them moved to new housing *as a
community* but were scattered around the borough. Thus losing a lot of >friendly community contacts and support.
Jim
This indicates your problem (and that of your monkey) exactly. Views or opinions cannot by definition be false or wrong. You, and others, can disagree with them but saying the are wrong is ludicrous. Do a bit of research, start with some definitions.
I recall reading that at one time some held the "view" that travelling much faster than a horse could gallop would cause them to lose consciousness as the air whooshed out of their lungs. This view turned out to be false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory
On 15/06/2022 10:22, Jeff Gaines wrote:
This indicates your problem (and that of your monkey) exactly. Views or >>opinions cannot by definition be false or wrong. You, and others, can >>disagree with them but saying the are wrong is ludicrous. Do a bit of >>research, start with some definitions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory
:-)
Jim
about "wireless communication" including "radio" (a ULW crystal set).
The articles were very wide ranging including stuffing animals. (No sniggering at the back).
I am reading one of Alice Robrts' book. She describes how (for
Millennia) there has been a slow (100,000 year) change in climate but
more rapid changes over a few years.
On 15/06/2022 11:43, Jim Lesurf wrote:
I recall reading that at one time some held the "view" that travelling
much
faster than a horse could gallop would cause them to lose consciousness as >>the air whooshed out of their lungs. This view turned out to be false.
Brunel ran into this mentality. He needed to tunnel under Box Hill. He
was told that at the speed his train would be travelling everybody on the >train would suffocate in the tunnel. He got past the objection by
building a tunnel with a gradient so that if everybody died the train
would continue out of the tunnel by gravity so that rescuers did not
suffer from the lack of air problem getting to the victims.
Funny enough, nobody has died in the tunnel (except some idiot who decided
to walk through and got hit by a train), despite trains now capable of
125mph through it.
Every theory has its detractors before the theory is finally accepted as >being right. Gallileo was hounded for suggesting that the Earth went
round the sun.
Jim
On 10/07/2022 14:34, Indy Jess John wrote: >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory
I wonder if the "Climate Change" claims will be similarly laughed at.
I am reading one of Alice Robrts' book. She describes how (for Millennia) >there has been a slow (100,000 year) change in climate but more rapid
changes over a few years.
But I had better be careful as it is heresy to question the Climate Change >cult.
On 10/07/2022 in message <tael6q$1d1p5$1@dont-email.me> MB wrote:
On 10/07/2022 14:34, Indy Jess John wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory
I wonder if the "Climate Change" claims will be similarly laughed at.
I am reading one of Alice Robrts' book. She describes how (for
Millennia) there has been a slow (100,000 year) change in climate but
more rapid changes over a few years.
But I had better be careful as it is heresy to question the Climate
Change cult.
We're about half way between ice ages but any suggestion that affects
climate is not fashionable of course.
On 10/07/2022 in message <taekhu$1cr09$2@dont-email.me> Indy Jess John
wrote:
On 15/06/2022 10:22, Jeff Gaines wrote:
This indicates your problem (and that of your monkey) exactly. Views
or opinions cannot by definition be false or wrong. You, and others,
can disagree with them but saying the are wrong is ludicrous. Do a
bit of research, start with some definitions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory
That's a theory not an opinion and anyway it was dephlogisticated years
ago :-)
On 10/07/2022 14:47, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 10/07/2022 in message <taekhu$1cr09$2@dont-email.me> Indy Jess John >>wrote:
On 15/06/2022 10:22, Jeff Gaines wrote:
This indicates your problem (and that of your monkey) exactly. Views or >>>>opinions cannot by definition be false or wrong. You, and others, can >>>>disagree with them but saying the are wrong is ludicrous. Do a bit of >>>>research, start with some definitions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory
That's a theory not an opinion and anyway it was dephlogisticated years
ago :-)
So it became just an erroneous opinion that didn't agree with the known >facts, just as your erroneous opinions don't agree with known facts.
On 10/07/2022 15:25, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 10/07/2022 in message <tael6q$1d1p5$1@dont-email.me> MB wrote:
On 10/07/2022 14:34, Indy Jess John wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory
I wonder if the "Climate Change" claims will be similarly laughed at.
I am reading one of Alice Robrts' book. She describes how (for >>>Millennia) there has been a slow (100,000 year) change in climate but >>>more rapid changes over a few years.
But I had better be careful as it is heresy to question the Climate >>>Change cult.
We're about half way between ice ages but any suggestion that affects >>climate is not fashionable of course.
Nonsense, it's been accepted for decades now that the ice ages were driven
by Milankovitch cycles, just as it's also been accepted for decades now
that humans are warming the planet.
In article <jhthjlF44a1U5@mid.individual.net>, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
That may well have been true in some cases. However the house I was
brought up in until about 10 years old was one of a set of similar
houses that were best dealt with by demolition and replacement. I
wasn't aware they were 'slums' at the time, but looking back, yes they
were.
Outside loos with no lights and only accessible via an outside door,
not from the house. Coal celler under the stairs, resting on the bare
ground. My bedroom got a pile of snow along the *inside* of the window
when it snowed outside. When it rained I saw the damp patches on the
ceiling caused by the leaks in the sagging roof of the terrace. etc.
All of those things would have been easy (and relatively cheap) to
repair.
And the council wouldn't have managed to get their dirty mitts on the
land (the main objective in most cases).
One of the snags was that they were owned by private landlords. So it would have been their responsibility to repair them. Trying to enforce that would have driven up rents, or caused the landlords to evict, demolish, and then rent out at much higher prices the new builds.
Simple repairs would have then meant having further 'repairs' as the whole set of houses were badly made on bugger-all as foundations, etc.
So having direct experience of them, I know well enough that the simplest - and in the end least costly - solution was to knock down and start again.
The problem, though, was that they demolished and did nothing with the
land, then built a multi-story crap rack. Then knocked that down, etc. Its now the area where they have the new 'Stratford International' complex of stations and the Olympics Park! After a succession of 're developments'
came and went.
The local council was heavily populated with local property builders and speculators. Fancy handshakes and aprons. Go figger.
The one good thing they *did do* was build a lot of - much better to live
in - flats. Problem being the way people were then scatterred about or shuffled out of the area.
And of course the flats got flogged off and not replaced when the Tories found that it suited them in many ways...
On 10/07/2022 in message <taeq8s$1dg0r$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
On 10/07/2022 15:25, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 10/07/2022 in message <tael6q$1d1p5$1@dont-email.me> MB wrote:
On 10/07/2022 14:34, Indy Jess John wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory
I wonder if the "Climate Change" claims will be similarly laughed at.
I am reading one of Alice Robrts' book. She describes how (for
Millennia) there has been a slow (100,000 year) change in climate
but more rapid changes over a few years.
But I had better be careful as it is heresy to question the Climate
Change cult.
We're about half way between ice ages but any suggestion that affects
climate is not fashionable of course.
Nonsense, it's been accepted for decades now that the ice ages were
driven by Milankovitch cycles, just as it's also been accepted for
decades now that humans are warming the planet.
Accepted by whom, "they"?
On 10/07/2022 in message <taeqde$1dg0r$2@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
On 10/07/2022 14:47, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 10/07/2022 in message <taekhu$1cr09$2@dont-email.me> Indy Jess
John wrote:
On 15/06/2022 10:22, Jeff Gaines wrote:
This indicates your problem (and that of your monkey) exactly.
Views or opinions cannot by definition be false or wrong. You, and >>>>> others, can disagree with them but saying the are wrong is
ludicrous. Do a bit of research, start with some definitions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory
That's a theory not an opinion and anyway it was dephlogisticated
years ago :-)
So it became just an erroneous opinion that didn't agree with the
known facts, just as your erroneous opinions don't agree with known
facts.
Oh dear, not you again. You still don't understand what an opinion is do
you?
I am reading one of Alice Robrts' book. She describes how (for >>>>>Millennia) there has been a slow (100,000 year) change in climate but >>>>>more rapid changes over a few years.
But I had better be careful as it is heresy to question the Climate >>>>>Change cult.
We're about half way between ice ages but any suggestion that affects >>>>climate is not fashionable of course.
Nonsense, it's been accepted for decades now that the ice ages were >>>driven by Milankovitch cycles, just as it's also been accepted for >>>decades now that humans are warming the planet.
Accepted by whom, "they"?
Anyone with a basic understanding of planetary science.
That's a theory not an opinion and anyway it was dephlogisticated years >>>>ago :-)
So it became just an erroneous opinion that didn't agree with the known >>>facts, just as your erroneous opinions don't agree with known facts.
Oh dear, not you again. You still don't understand what an opinion is do >>you?
You still don't understand what a lie is, do you?
On 10/07/2022 in message <taerpo$1dla0$2@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
That's a theory not an opinion and anyway it was dephlogisticated
years ago :-)
So it became just an erroneous opinion that didn't agree with the
known facts, just as your erroneous opinions don't agree with known
facts.
Oh dear, not you again. You still don't understand what an opinion is
do you?
You still don't understand what a lie is, do you?
I believe I do and am, in fact, waiting for whoever made the claim to
point me to where I "lied". Why don't you speak to somebody in
marketing, they will be able to put you right on how opinions are
formed, and more interestingly, what is involved in changing them.
On 10/07/2022 in message <taerpo$1dla0$2@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
That's a theory not an opinion and anyway it was dephlogisticated >>>>years ago :-)
So it became just an erroneous opinion that didn't agree with the
known facts, just as your erroneous opinions don't agree with known >>>facts.
Oh dear, not you again. You still don't understand what an opinion is
do you?
You still don't understand what a lie is, do you?
I believe I do and am, in fact, waiting for whoever made the claim to
point me to where I "lied". Why don't you speak to somebody in
marketing, they will be able to put you right on how opinions are
formed, and more interestingly, what is involved in changing them.
In article <xn0nk7cpi9163se01a@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines ><jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/07/2022 in message <taerpo$1dla0$2@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
That's a theory not an opinion and anyway it was dephlogisticated >>>>>>years ago :-)
So it became just an erroneous opinion that didn't agree with the >>>>>known facts, just as your erroneous opinions don't agree with known >>>>>facts.
Oh dear, not you again. You still don't understand what an opinion is >>>>do you?
You still don't understand what a lie is, do you?
I believe I do and am, in fact, waiting for whoever made the claim to
point me to where I "lied". Why don't you speak to somebody in
marketing, they will be able to put you right on how opinions are
formed, and more interestingly, what is involved in changing them.
Opinions should be based on fact, not marketing hype.
In article <xn0nk7cpi9163se01a@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/07/2022 in message <taerpo$1dla0$2@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
That's a theory not an opinion and anyway it was dephlogisticated
years ago :-)
So it became just an erroneous opinion that didn't agree with the
known facts, just as your erroneous opinions don't agree with known
facts.
Oh dear, not you again. You still don't understand what an opinion is
do you?
You still don't understand what a lie is, do you?
I believe I do and am, in fact, waiting for whoever made the claim to
point me to where I "lied". Why don't you speak to somebody in
marketing, they will be able to put you right on how opinions are
formed, and more interestingly, what is involved in changing them.
Opinions should be based on fact, not marketing hype.
On 16/06/2022 12:07, Max Demian wrote:
It had an article
about "wireless communication" including "radio" (a ULW crystal set).
The articles were very wide ranging including stuffing animals. (No
sniggering at the back).
I built a crystal set with a crystal and cat's whisker and it did work
:-)
I have an ancient encyclopaedia. In it there is an article on
aeronautics which tells me that "There is no evidence that heavier than
air flight will ever be commercially viable". It is as accurate now as
IBMs assessment that there may perhaps be a market for up to 6 computers.
On 10/07/2022 14:46, MB wrote:
I am reading one of Alice Robrts' book. She describes how (for
Millennia) there has been a slow (100,000 year) change in climate but
more rapid changes over a few years.
I read somewhere that each ice age was preceded by a couple of centuries
of abnormally high temperatures. I also read that we are in the window where a new ice age is due according to the patterns of the past.
On 10/07/2022 17:55, charles wrote:
In article <xn0nk7cpi9163se01a@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/07/2022 in message <taerpo$1dla0$2@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
That's a theory not an opinion and anyway it was dephlogisticated >>>>>> years ago :-)
So it became just an erroneous opinion that didn't agree with the
known facts, just as your erroneous opinions don't agree with known >>>>> facts.
Oh dear, not you again. You still don't understand what an opinion is >>>> do you?
You still don't understand what a lie is, do you?
I believe I do and am, in fact, waiting for whoever made the claim to
point me to where I "lied". Why don't you speak to somebody in
marketing, they will be able to put you right on how opinions are
formed, and more interestingly, what is involved in changing them.
Opinions should be based on fact, not marketing hype.
That may be your opinion but the fact is the OED's definitiom of opinion starts "What or how one thinks about something; judgement or belief."
On 10/07/2022 17:55, charles wrote:
In article <xn0nk7cpi9163se01a@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines >><jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/07/2022 in message <taerpo$1dla0$2@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
That's a theory not an opinion and anyway it was dephlogisticated >>>>>>>years ago :-)
So it became just an erroneous opinion that didn't agree with the >>>>>>known facts, just as your erroneous opinions don't agree with known >>>>>>facts.
Oh dear, not you again. You still don't understand what an opinion is >>>>>do you?
You still don't understand what a lie is, do you?
I believe I do and am, in fact, waiting for whoever made the claim to >>>point me to where I "lied". Why don't you speak to somebody in
marketing, they will be able to put you right on how opinions are
formed, and more interestingly, what is involved in changing them.
Opinions should be based on fact, not marketing hype.
That may be your opinion but the fact is the OED's definitiom of opinion >starts "What or how one thinks about something; judgement or belief."
On 10/07/2022 in message <5a05e72bc5charles@candehope.me.uk> charles wrote:
In article <xn0nk7cpi9163se01a@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines
<jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/07/2022 in message <taerpo$1dla0$2@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
That's a theory not an opinion and anyway it was dephlogisticated >>>>>>> years ago :-)
So it became just an erroneous opinion that didn't agree with the
known facts, just as your erroneous opinions don't agree with known >>>>>> facts.
Oh dear, not you again. You still don't understand what an opinion is >>>>> do you?
You still don't understand what a lie is, do you?
I believe I do and am, in fact, waiting for whoever made the claim to
point me to where I "lied". Why don't you speak to somebody in
marketing, they will be able to put you right on how opinions are
formed, and more interestingly, what is involved in changing them.
Opinions should be based on fact, not marketing hype.
Absolutely wrong, see my advice to Java Jive. Many things in life go
towards forming opinions, facts form a very small part if it.
Why do you think companies spend so much on marketing to change/form opinions?
In the 70s there were TV programmes warning of a new ice age.
That's a theory not an opinion and anyway it was dephlogisticated
years ago :-)
So it became just an erroneous opinion that didn't agree with the
known facts, just as your erroneous opinions don't agree with known
facts.
Oh dear, not you again. You still don't understand what an opinion is do
you?
You still don't understand what a lie is, do you?
On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 16:38:31 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
That's a theory not an opinion and anyway it was dephlogisticated
years ago :-)
So it became just an erroneous opinion that didn't agree with the
known facts, just as your erroneous opinions don't agree with known
facts.
Oh dear, not you again. You still don't understand what an opinion is do >>> you?
You still don't understand what a lie is, do you?
I do, and so does the Oxford English Dictionary.
It's a deliberate untruth, intended to deceive.
I don't think anyone intends to deceive anyone simply by expressing an opinion that someone else might not agree with.
On 10/07/2022 in message <tael0d$1d14s$1@dont-email.me> Indy Jess John
wrote:
On 15/06/2022 11:43, Jim Lesurf wrote:
I recall reading that at one time some held the "view" that
travelling much
faster than a horse could gallop would cause them to lose
consciousness as
the air whooshed out of their lungs. This view turned out to be false.
Brunel ran into this mentality. He needed to tunnel under Box Hill.
He was told that at the speed his train would be travelling everybody
on the train would suffocate in the tunnel. He got past the objection
by building a tunnel with a gradient so that if everybody died the
train would continue out of the tunnel by gravity so that rescuers did
not suffer from the lack of air problem getting to the victims.
Funny enough, nobody has died in the tunnel (except some idiot who
decided to walk through and got hit by a train), despite trains now
capable of 125mph through it.
Every theory has its detractors before the theory is finally accepted
as being right. Gallileo was hounded for suggesting that the Earth
went round the sun.
Jim
Is this the tunnel that the sun shines through on his birthday each year?
On 10/07/2022 18:34, Max Demian wrote:
In the 70s there were TV programmes warning of a new ice age.
How deep under water were we suppose to be by now according to doom
merchants a few years ago.
You still don't understand what a lie is, do you?
In article <84289dd2-947e-e888-5470-6e4be452e8e1@outlook.com>,
Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
On 10/07/2022 17:55, charles wrote:
In article <xn0nk7cpi9163se01a@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines
<jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/07/2022 in message <taerpo$1dla0$2@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote: >>>
That's a theory not an opinion and anyway it was dephlogisticated >>>>>>>> years ago :-)
So it became just an erroneous opinion that didn't agree with the >>>>>>> known facts, just as your erroneous opinions don't agree with known >>>>>>> facts.
Oh dear, not you again. You still don't understand what an opinion is >>>>>> do you?
You still don't understand what a lie is, do you?
I believe I do and am, in fact, waiting for whoever made the claim to
point me to where I "lied". Why don't you speak to somebody in
marketing, they will be able to put you right on how opinions are
formed, and more interestingly, what is involved in changing them.
Opinions should be based on fact, not marketing hype.
That may be your opinion but the fact is the OED's definitiom of opinion
starts "What or how one thinks about something; judgement or belief."
whereas Chambers: "what seems to one to be probably true"; Shakesperean
use: "Arrogance"
Quite: "seem to one"; not "seems to all right thinking people to be
probably true so anyone who disagrees is a fascist whose views are not
worthy of respect in a democratic society".
On 10/07/2022 21:56, Robin wrote:
Quite: "seem to one"; not "seems to all right thinking people to be >>probably true so anyone who disagrees is a fascist whose views are not >>worthy of respect in a democratic society".
But when, as in this case, someone restates an opinion that has ALREADY
been shown to deviate from reality, that is no longer merely voicing an >opinion, it's lying.
On 10/07/2022 in message <taffn8$1fijp$2@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
On 10/07/2022 21:56, Robin wrote:
Quite: "seem to one"; not "seems to all right thinking people to be
probably true so anyone who disagrees is a fascist whose views are
not worthy of respect in a democratic society".
But when, as in this case, someone restates an opinion that has
ALREADY been shown to deviate from reality, that is no longer merely
voicing an opinion, it's lying.
Go and speak to a marketing person and get some advice because your are really, really, confused about what an opinion is.
On 10/07/2022 22:45, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 10/07/2022 in message <taffn8$1fijp$2@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
On 10/07/2022 21:56, Robin wrote:
Quite: "seem to one"; not "seems to all right thinking people to be >>>>probably true so anyone who disagrees is a fascist whose views are not >>>>worthy of respect in a democratic society".
But when, as in this case, someone restates an opinion that has ALREADY >>>been shown to deviate from reality, that is no longer merely voicing an >>>opinion, it's lying.
Go and speak to a marketing person and get some advice because your are >>really, really, confused about what an opinion is.
Go and speak to a scientist and get some advice because your are really, >really, confused about what a fact is.
On 10/07/2022 in message <tafht3$1fpg9$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
On 10/07/2022 22:45, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 10/07/2022 in message <taffn8$1fijp$2@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote: >>>
On 10/07/2022 21:56, Robin wrote:
Quite: "seem to one"; not "seems to all right thinking people to be
probably true so anyone who disagrees is a fascist whose views are
not worthy of respect in a democratic society".
But when, as in this case, someone restates an opinion that has
ALREADY been shown to deviate from reality, that is no longer
merely voicing an opinion, it's lying.
Go and speak to a marketing person and get some advice because your
are really, really, confused about what an opinion is.
Go and speak to a scientist and get some advice because your are
really, really, confused about what a fact is.
I know exactly what a fact is AND I know the difference between a fact
and an opinion. Get some advice, you need it.
On 10/07/2022 in message <taeroe$1dla0$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
I am reading one of Alice Robrts' book. She describes how (for >>>>>>Millennia) there has been a slow (100,000 year) change in climate >>>>>>but more rapid changes over a few years.
But I had better be careful as it is heresy to question the Climate >>>>>>Change cult.
We're about half way between ice ages but any suggestion that affects >>>>>climate is not fashionable of course.
Nonsense, it's been accepted for decades now that the ice ages were >>>>driven by Milankovitch cycles, just as it's also been accepted for >>>>decades now that humans are warming the planet.
Accepted by whom, "they"?
Anyone with a basic understanding of planetary science.
Ah, that's why it went over my head.
On 10/07/2022 20:15, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 16:38:31 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
That's a theory not an opinion and anyway it was dephlogisticated
years ago :-)
So it became just an erroneous opinion that didn't agree with the
known facts, just as your erroneous opinions don't agree with known
facts.
Oh dear, not you again. You still don't understand what an opinion is do >>>> you?
You still don't understand what a lie is, do you?
I do, and so does the Oxford English Dictionary.
It's a deliberate untruth, intended to deceive.
I don't think anyone intends to deceive anyone simply by expressing an
opinion that someone else might not agree with.
Why else would anyone restate an opinion that has already been proven false?
On 10/07/2022 in message <taffn8$1fijp$2@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
On 10/07/2022 21:56, Robin wrote:
Quite: "seem to one"; not "seems to all right thinking people to be
probably true so anyone who disagrees is a fascist whose views are
not worthy of respect in a democratic society".
But when, as in this case, someone restates an opinion that has
ALREADY been shown to deviate from reality, that is no longer merely
voicing an opinion, it's lying.
Go and speak to a marketing person and get some advice because your are really, really, confused about what an opinion is.
On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 20:44:44 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
On 10/07/2022 20:15, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 16:38:31 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
That's a theory not an opinion and anyway it was dephlogisticated >>>>>>> years ago :-)
So it became just an erroneous opinion that didn't agree with the
known facts, just as your erroneous opinions don't agree with known >>>>>> facts.
Oh dear, not you again. You still don't understand what an opinion is do >>>>> you?
You still don't understand what a lie is, do you?
I do, and so does the Oxford English Dictionary.
It's a deliberate untruth, intended to deceive.
I don't think anyone intends to deceive anyone simply by expressing an
opinion that someone else might not agree with.
Why else would anyone restate an opinion that has already been proven false?
Because it's their opinion perhaps?
Because they might not know that it has been proven false?
Because even if they've heard of a proof that it's false they might
not accept that the proof valid? (Is it really a proof anyway, or just another opinion?)
In any case, as long as they are not attempting deliberately to
deceive, then they are not "lying".
On 10/07/2022 20:17, MB wrote:
On 10/07/2022 18:34, Max Demian wrote:
In the 70s there were TV programmes warning of a new ice age.
How deep under water were we suppose to be by now according to doom
merchants a few years ago.
We weren't:
https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
"The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming."
On 10/07/2022 20:51, Java Jive wrote:
On 10/07/2022 20:17, MB wrote:
On 10/07/2022 18:34, Max Demian wrote:
In the 70s there were TV programmes warning of a new ice age.
How deep under water were we suppose to be by now according to doom
merchants a few years ago.
We weren't:
https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
"The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming."
Since when were scientific findings determined by a majority vote of
papers?
On 11/07/2022 11:18, Max Demian wrote:
On 10/07/2022 20:51, Java Jive wrote:
On 10/07/2022 20:17, MB wrote:
On 10/07/2022 18:34, Max Demian wrote:
In the 70s there were TV programmes warning of a new ice age.
How deep under water were we suppose to be by now according to doom
merchants a few years ago.
We weren't:
https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
"The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming."
Since when were scientific findings determined by a majority vote of
papers?
Since when were they not?
On 11/07/2022 11:43, Java Jive wrote:
On 11/07/2022 11:18, Max Demian wrote:
On 10/07/2022 20:51, Java Jive wrote:
On 10/07/2022 20:17, MB wrote:
On 10/07/2022 18:34, Max Demian wrote:
In the 70s there were TV programmes warning of a new ice age.
How deep under water were we suppose to be by now according to doom
merchants a few years ago.
We weren't:
https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
"The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming."
Since when were scientific findings determined by a majority vote of
papers?
Since when were they not?
The notion that the majority of papers determines the norm seems to me
novel and contentious.
What I do recall is old Alby who said "No amount of experimentation can
ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong".
OK, Popper teaches us that's naive. (And not just 'cos one would in practice want replication of the experiment by independent researchers.)
But then Kuhn gave us the (much misunderstood/misused) paradigm shift.
And those certainly don't require a cumulative majority of papers to tip
the balance.
On 11/07/2022 14:05, Robin wrote:
On 11/07/2022 11:43, Java Jive wrote:
On 11/07/2022 11:18, Max Demian wrote:
On 10/07/2022 20:51, Java Jive wrote:
On 10/07/2022 20:17, MB wrote:Since when were scientific findings determined by a majority vote of
On 10/07/2022 18:34, Max Demian wrote:
In the 70s there were TV programmes warning of a new ice age.
How deep under water were we suppose to be by now according to
doom merchants a few years ago.
We weren't:
https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
"The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming." >>>>
papers?
Since when were they not?
The notion that the majority of papers determines the norm seems to me
novel and contentious.
What I do recall is old Alby who said "No amount of experimentation
can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong".
OK, Popper teaches us that's naive. (And not just 'cos one would in
practice want replication of the experiment by independent researchers.)
But then Kuhn gave us the (much misunderstood/misused) paradigm shift.
And those certainly don't require a cumulative majority of papers to
tip the balance.
Philosophy is fine as an intellectual talking point, but, back here in
the real world, ideally we, in particular politicans, have to make
decisions on some sort of rational evidential basis, and that will
usually involve following what the majority of the science says,
On 11/07/2022 14:39, Java Jive wrote:
On 11/07/2022 14:05, Robin wrote:
On 11/07/2022 11:43, Java Jive wrote:
On 11/07/2022 11:18, Max Demian wrote:
On 10/07/2022 20:51, Java Jive wrote:
On 10/07/2022 20:17, MB wrote:Since when were scientific findings determined by a majority vote
On 10/07/2022 18:34, Max Demian wrote:
In the 70s there were TV programmes warning of a new ice age.
How deep under water were we suppose to be by now according to
doom merchants a few years ago.
We weren't:
https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
"The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming." >>>>>
of papers?
Since when were they not?
The notion that the majority of papers determines the norm seems to
me novel and contentious.
What I do recall is old Alby who said "No amount of experimentation
can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong".
OK, Popper teaches us that's naive. (And not just 'cos one would in
practice want replication of the experiment by independent researchers.) >>>
But then Kuhn gave us the (much misunderstood/misused) paradigm
shift. And those certainly don't require a cumulative majority of
papers to tip the balance.
Philosophy is fine as an intellectual talking point, but, back here in
the real world, ideally we, in particular politicans, have to make
decisions on some sort of rational evidential basis, and that will
usually involve following what the majority of the science says,
I was questioning your claim for the role of a majority of papers.
Your new formulation - "the majority of the science" - begs just as many questions. Summing over all the papers ever published or some defined[1] period? And over all "science" or just a selected[2] subset of researchers/journals/States?
Meanwhile there is ample evidence that the way scientific advice to
Ministers is arrived at, and the way decisions are taken, is nothing
like as simple as "what's the majority view?" You don't have to have
been in the room to know that: advice on climate and minutes from the
1970s have long been available and reviewed extensively.
[1] by whom? on what basis?
[2] do.
Since when were scientific findings determined by a majority vote of papers?
On 10/07/2022 14:34, Indy Jess John wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory
I wonder if the "Climate Change" claims will be similarly laughed at.
I am reading one of Alice Robrts' book. She describes how (for
Millennia) there has been a slow (100,000 year) change in climate but
more rapid changes over a few years.
But I had better be careful as it is heresy to question the Climate
Change cult.
Every theory has its detractors before the theory is finally accepted as being right. Gallileo was hounded for suggesting that the Earth went
round the sun.
In article <tael0d$1d14s$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John ><bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
Every theory has its detractors before the theory is finally accepted as
being right. Gallileo was hounded for suggesting that the Earth went
round the sun.
I may be that it was hounded for making the Pope look like an idiot.
Jim
In article <tael6q$1d1p5$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 10/07/2022 14:34, Indy Jess John wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory
I wonder if the "Climate Change" claims will be similarly laughed at.
I am reading one of Alice Robrts' book. She describes how (for
Millennia) there has been a slow (100,000 year) change in climate but
more rapid changes over a few years.
But I had better be careful as it is heresy to question the Climate
Change cult.
Not heresy, just lazy sh1t-stirring or willful ignorance. :-)
l
In article <5a063ef1d5noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <tael6q$1d1p5$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
But I had better be careful as it is heresy to question the Climate
Change cult.
Not heresy, just lazy sh1t-stirring or willful ignorance. :-)
So anyone that disagrees is just wrong, ignorant, etc. etc.
Unbelievable.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 12:12:20 |
| Calls: | 6,666 |
| Files: | 12,214 |
| Messages: | 5,336,445 |
