Oh dear oh dear oh dear

If you are going to do it, make sure it is right.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39175570

2017-03-06 10:46:23 UTC

Post by Yellow
If you are going to do it, make sure it is right.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39175570

Another link I don't click on without knowing the summarised content.

MM

Ian Jackson

2017-03-06 11:08:49 UTC

Post by Yellow
If you are going to do it, make sure it is right.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39175570

Another link I don't click on without knowing the summarised content.

I think you're pretty safe if it begins http://www.bbc.co.uk/ !

--
Ian

The Todal

2017-03-06 11:23:56 UTC

Post by Yellow
If you are going to do it, make sure it is right.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39175570

Another link I don't click on without knowing the summarised content.

I think you're pretty safe if it begins http://www.bbc.co.uk/ !

So why did it take me to a site full of pictures of naked children? Huh?

By the way, I just caught up with last week's Question Time. What a
dreadful episode that was. Especially the question about child porn,
quoting Chief Constable Bailey who said that people convicted of
possession of child porn shouldn't be sent to gaol unless assessed to be
a real threat to youngsters.

One after another, the fuckwits on the team including Labour's Dawn
Butler, Ming Campbell who must have forgotten that he was once a lawyer
and the worst ever Lord Chancellor Lynne Truss, condemned Mr Bailey
without actually seeming to understand the point he was making. Peter
Hitchens was reluctant to fall into line behind his team mates and
showed a glimmer of understanding of the nature of the problem.

Yellow

2017-03-06 12:14:13 UTC

In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@icloud.com
says...

Post by Yellow
If you are going to do it, make sure it is right.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39175570

Another link I don't click on without knowing the summarised content.

I think you're pretty safe if it begins http://www.bbc.co.uk/ !

So why did it take me to a site full of pictures of naked children? Huh?

:-)

I lost heart and almost stopped watching because the conversation seemed
pointless, so scared where they to "say the wrong thing".

Post by The Todal
One after another, the fuckwits on the team including Labour's Dawn
Butler, Ming Campbell who must have forgotten that he was once a lawyer
and the worst ever Lord Chancellor Lynne Truss, condemned Mr Bailey
without actually seeming to understand the point he was making. Peter
Hitchens was reluctant to fall into line behind his team mates and
showed a glimmer of understanding of the nature of the problem.

I do not very often agree with Peter Hitchens but I always enjoy
listening to what he has to say but on this, a subject I know nothing
about, he seemed to be talking sense to me.

burfordTjustice

2017-03-06 12:32:28 UTC

On Mon, 6 Mar 2017 11:23:56 +0000

Post by The Todal
So why did it take me to a site full of pictures of naked children? Huh?

Proof?

2017-03-06 12:38:56 UTC

Post by The Todal
and the worst ever Lord Chancellor Lynne Truss

You mean Liz. Lynne wrote about eating shoots and leaves.

The Todal

2017-03-06 15:40:32 UTC

Post by The Todal
and the worst ever Lord Chancellor Lynne Truss

You mean Liz. Lynne wrote about eating shoots and leaves.

Many thanks for the correction. Liz Truss is the one I meant. The cheese
expert who, like Chance the Gardener, was suddenly appointed to be Lord
Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice. Talks Shit And Won't Leave.

JNugent

2017-03-06 14:35:22 UTC

Post by Yellow
If you are going to do it, make sure it is right.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39175570

Another link I don't click on without knowing the summarised content.

I think you're pretty safe if it begins http://www.bbc.co.uk/ !

So why did it take me to a site full of pictures of naked children? Huh?

You got the archive page for "Jim'll Fix it"?

Post by The Todal
By the way, I just caught up with last week's Question Time. What a
dreadful episode that was. Especially the question about child porn,
quoting Chief Constable Bailey who said that people convicted of
possession of child porn shouldn't be sent to gaol unless assessed to be
a real threat to youngsters.
One after another, the fuckwits on the team including Labour's Dawn
Butler, Ming Campbell who must have forgotten that he was once a lawyer
and the worst ever Lord Chancellor Lynne Truss, condemned Mr Bailey
without actually seeming to understand the point he was making. Peter
Hitchens was reluctant to fall into line behind his team mates and
showed a glimmer of understanding of the nature of the problem.

I have to say that going to jail for looking at pictures has always
seemed a bit OTT to me.

I am well aware of the rationale, which is about cutting demand for
child pornography, but still...

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

j***@gmail.com

2017-03-07 09:50:47 UTC

I had to write our company's child policy. So used the BBCs :)

Tom G

2017-03-06 15:31:09 UTC

What harm are peedyfiles doing by looking at pictures? Don't give me
that bollocks about it feeding a market, nearly all the stuff they get
nicked for they get for free off the Internet.

R. Mark Clayton

2017-03-06 18:36:30 UTC

Post by Tom G

What harm are peedyfiles doing by looking at pictures? Don't give me
that bollocks about it feeding a market, nearly all the stuff they get
nicked for they get for free off the Internet.

If I eat a nice juicy steak for my dinner, I know that for this to happen a cow had to be slaughtered somewhere. I am not a veggie and accept humane animal slaughter as the price of a meat diet.

Similarly if you want to spend your time looking a pictures of children be defiled, you have to realise that to be able to that, some child somewhere had to be sexually abused to create the images and that you are in part responsible for that happening.

Tom G

2017-03-06 18:46:46 UTC

Post by Tom G

What harm are peedyfiles doing by looking at pictures? Don't give me
that bollocks about it feeding a market, nearly all the stuff they get
nicked for they get for free off the Internet.

If I eat a nice juicy steak for my dinner, I know that for this to happen a cow had to be slaughtered somewhere. I am not a veggie and accept humane animal slaughter as the price of a meat diet.
Similarly if you want to spend your time looking a pictures of children be defiled, you have to realise that to be able to that, some child somewhere had to be sexually abused to create the images and that you are in part responsible for that happening.

So you are saying that if these peedyfiles didn't look at the pictures
they have been nicked for that children wouldn't be abused? Your logic
is very flawed.

There is also the argument that while the peedys' are wanking off over
their keyboards that their needs are being met and they leave the real
thing alone.

http://metro.co.uk/2017/01/21/dozens-of-arrests-over-obscene-child-sex-dolls-being-sold-in-the-uk-6397199/

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/01/can-child-dolls-keep-pedophiles-from-offending/423324/

2017-03-06 18:49:19 UTC

Post by Tom G
What harm are peedyfiles doing by looking at pictures? Don't give me
that bollocks about it feeding a market, nearly all the stuff they get
nicked for they get for free off the Internet.

If I eat a nice juicy steak for my dinner, I know that for this to happen a cow had to be slaughtered somewhere. I am not a veggie and accept humane animal slaughter as the price of a meat diet.
Similarly if you want to spend your time looking a pictures of children be defiled, you have to realise that to be able to that, some child somewhere had to be sexually abused to create the images and that you are in part responsible for that happening.

However, what if my steak is made out of Quorn? Then, I'm not eating
meat. However, if the kiddie porn is computer-generated or hand-drawn,
it's still illegal in this country. I don't understand that.

Tom G

2017-03-06 18:55:32 UTC

If I eat a nice juicy steak for my dinner, I know that for this to
happen a cow had to be slaughtered somewhere. I am not a veggie and
accept humane animal slaughter as the price of a meat diet.
Similarly if you want to spend your time looking a pictures of
children be defiled, you have to realise that to be able to that, some
child somewhere had to be sexually abused to create the images and
that you are in part responsible for that happening.

It's the thought police. You are not allowed to have certain fantasies
no matter how much you keep them to yourself.

p***@gmail.com

2017-03-07 01:36:11 UTC

Post by Tom G
It's the thought police. You are not allowed to have certain fantasies
no matter how much you keep them to yourself.

The subject is abhorrent but the so called answer to it makes no
sense. It is not unlawful to watch a child having its head chopped of
but it is if a sex act is involved and the chld is not killed?????

The Todal

2017-03-06 19:29:09 UTC

If I eat a nice juicy steak for my dinner, I know that for this to
happen a cow had to be slaughtered somewhere. I am not a veggie and
accept humane animal slaughter as the price of a meat diet.
Similarly if you want to spend your time looking a pictures of
children be defiled, you have to realise that to be able to that, some
child somewhere had to be sexually abused to create the images and
that you are in part responsible for that happening.

I do understand the logic of criminalising pseudo-photographs as well as
real photographs. The hope, based on rather naive and old fashioned
psychology, is that photographs feed a habit and may be an incitement to
more extreme criminality. However, pictures of nude adults and children
have been circulated for hundreds of years, and photographs since
photography was invented.

The fact of the matter is that tens of thousands, maybe millions, of UK
adults have weird sexual kinks that would nauseate many of us. You can't
realistically cure them and the best you can hope for is that they
confine their interests to wanking as they look at pictures. That would
apply to child porn but also animal/human porn and simulated sexual
violence in pictures.

You can't hope to change society and change everyone's sexual
preferences - it would be as futile as trying to "cure" a homosexual".
Some people have a very strong sex drive which depends on certain
unusual triggers. Others might complacently say that they don't much
care for sex, or that the sight of a pair of stockings is all they need
to get themselves turned on.

If people are identified as owners of child porn, irrespective of
whether they are paedophiles or have ever attempted to seduce a child,
they will lose their jobs and be disgraced and named in the local
papers. If they have children they will lose their parental rights and
be allowed only limited supervised contact, for ever.

The next question though is: should they also be put in gaol if they
have confined their activities to looking at pictures? Logically, we
have little enough room in our prisons and we should therefore imprison
only those who have been assessed to be a threat to real live children.

And the moron's answer to that would be: anyone who has had a picture of
a naked child in their possession most definitely is a threat to real
live children.

2017-03-07 09:20:10 UTC

Post by The Todal
The fact of the matter is that tens of thousands, maybe millions, of UK
adults have weird sexual kinks that would nauseate many of us. You can't
realistically cure them and the best you can hope for is that they
confine their interests to wanking as they look at pictures. That would
apply to child porn but also animal/human porn and simulated sexual
violence in pictures.

I'd have put it more gracefully as providing a less harmful outlet to
their desires, but yes that is the point. There's something rather
po-faced about banning pseudo-pictures.

2017-03-07 10:31:43 UTC

If I eat a nice juicy steak for my dinner, I know that for this to
happen a cow had to be slaughtered somewhere. I am not a veggie and
accept humane animal slaughter as the price of a meat diet.
Similarly if you want to spend your time looking a pictures of
children be defiled, you have to realise that to be able to that, some
child somewhere had to be sexually abused to create the images and
that you are in part responsible for that happening.

I do understand the logic of criminalising pseudo-photographs as well as
real photographs. The hope, based on rather naive and old fashioned
psychology, is that photographs feed a habit and may be an incitement to
more extreme criminality. However, pictures of nude adults and children
have been circulated for hundreds of years, and photographs since
photography was invented.
The fact of the matter is that tens of thousands, maybe millions, of UK
adults have weird sexual kinks that would nauseate many of us. You can't
realistically cure them and the best you can hope for is that they
confine their interests to wanking as they look at pictures. That would
apply to child porn but also animal/human porn and simulated sexual
violence in pictures.
You can't hope to change society and change everyone's sexual
preferences - it would be as futile as trying to "cure" a homosexual".
Some people have a very strong sex drive which depends on certain
unusual triggers. Others might complacently say that they don't much
care for sex, or that the sight of a pair of stockings is all they need
to get themselves turned on.
If people are identified as owners of child porn, irrespective of
whether they are paedophiles or have ever attempted to seduce a child,
they will lose their jobs and be disgraced and named in the local
papers. If they have children they will lose their parental rights and
be allowed only limited supervised contact, for ever.
The next question though is: should they also be put in gaol if they
have confined their activities to looking at pictures? Logically, we
have little enough room in our prisons and we should therefore imprison
only those who have been assessed to be a threat to real live children.
And the moron's answer to that would be: anyone who has had a picture of
a naked child in their possession most definitely is a threat to real
live children.

The Daily Heil had a field day in the 1990s with "Klara And Edda
Belly-Dancing", subsequently judged not to be indecent by the Crown
Prosecution Service.

MM

Tom G

2017-03-07 15:31:46 UTC

If I eat a nice juicy steak for my dinner, I know that for this to
happen a cow had to be slaughtered somewhere. I am not a veggie and
accept humane animal slaughter as the price of a meat diet.
Similarly if you want to spend your time looking a pictures of
children be defiled, you have to realise that to be able to that, some
child somewhere had to be sexually abused to create the images and
that you are in part responsible for that happening.

I do understand the logic of criminalising pseudo-photographs as well as
real photographs. The hope, based on rather naive and old fashioned
psychology, is that photographs feed a habit and may be an incitement to
more extreme criminality. However, pictures of nude adults and children
have been circulated for hundreds of years, and photographs since
photography was invented.
The fact of the matter is that tens of thousands, maybe millions, of UK
adults have weird sexual kinks that would nauseate many of us. You can't
realistically cure them and the best you can hope for is that they
confine their interests to wanking as they look at pictures. That would
apply to child porn but also animal/human porn and simulated sexual
violence in pictures.
You can't hope to change society and change everyone's sexual
preferences - it would be as futile as trying to "cure" a homosexual".
Some people have a very strong sex drive which depends on certain
unusual triggers. Others might complacently say that they don't much
care for sex, or that the sight of a pair of stockings is all they need
to get themselves turned on.
If people are identified as owners of child porn, irrespective of
whether they are paedophiles or have ever attempted to seduce a child,
they will lose their jobs and be disgraced and named in the local
papers. If they have children they will lose their parental rights and
be allowed only limited supervised contact, for ever.
The next question though is: should they also be put in gaol if they
have confined their activities to looking at pictures? Logically, we
have little enough room in our prisons and we should therefore imprison
only those who have been assessed to be a threat to real live children.
And the moron's answer to that would be: anyone who has had a picture of
a naked child in their possession most definitely is a threat to real
live children.

The Daily Heil had a field day in the 1990s with "Klara And Edda
Belly-Dancing", subsequently judged not to be indecent by the Crown
Prosecution Service.
MM

Wasn't Sam Fox 15 when Murdoch first published pictures of her tits?

Handsome Jack

2017-03-07 15:07:24 UTC

Post by GB
However, what if my steak is made out of Quorn? Then, I'm not eating
meat. However, if the kiddie porn is computer-generated or hand-drawn,
it's still illegal in this country. I don't understand that.

Actually, no, the justification was given by the junior minister Maria
Eagle when the Coroners & Justice Bill was being debated in March 2009:

"Maria Eagle: The Government take very seriously all matters relating to
the sexual abuse of children. Any material that might appear to derive
from or encourage such activity is something that all Members of this
House should disapprove. All hon. Members know that the UK has an
absolute prohibition on the production, distribution and possession of
indecent photographs of children. We have recently extended the law to
cover tracings and derivatives of such photographs. However, the
possession of images that have no connection with photographs is not
covered by the current criminal law, which is the gap that we are
seeking to close with this provision. The police have reported finding
increasing numbers of such images alongside indecent photographs of
children. More of those images are also being found on the internet and
are often blatantly advertised as legal child pornography. I remind hon.
Members that child pornography is illegal in this country and if there
are loopholes, we need to close them. Police and child welfare groups
have expressed concerns that such images could be used for the purposes
to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend referred, and lead to
escalation and real harm. Just because we cannot prove real harm to
specific children at this minute, we should not allow such loopholes —
effectively, created by developments in technology — to continue to
make a mockery of the law that is intended to protect our children.
These images are at the highest, most explicit and disgusting,
unpleasant end of any spectrum that might be considered to be the end
result of a doodle. They are highly detailed, explicit drawings,
cartoons and computer-generated images that look real and depict
horrific scenes of child sexual abuse, as my right hon. Friend the
Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East made clear in his remarks.
This is not about generally cracking down on artistic doodles or on art,
but about cracking down on a loophole that the police and others who
deal with child protection are increasingly drawing to the attention of
policy makers and Government. We should be taking that seriously."

--
Jack

Tom G

2017-03-07 15:29:38 UTC

Post by Handsome Jack
"Maria Eagle: The Government take very seriously all matters relating to
the sexual abuse of children. Any material that might appear to derive
from or encourage such activity is something that all Members of this
House should disapprove. All hon. Members know that the UK has an
absolute prohibition on the production, distribution and possession of
indecent photographs of children. We have recently extended the law to
cover tracings and derivatives of such photographs. However, the
possession of images that have no connection with photographs is not
covered by the current criminal law, which is the gap that we are
seeking to close with this provision. The police have reported finding
increasing numbers of such images alongside indecent photographs of
children. More of those images are also being found on the internet and
are often blatantly advertised as legal child pornography. I remind hon.
Members that child pornography is illegal in this country and if there
are loopholes, we need to close them. Police and child welfare groups
have expressed concerns that such images could be used for the purposes
to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend referred, and lead to
escalation and real harm. Just because we cannot prove real harm to
specific children at this minute, we should not allow such loopholes —
effectively, created by developments in technology — to continue to make
a mockery of the law that is intended to protect our children. These
images are at the highest, most explicit and disgusting, unpleasant end
of any spectrum that might be considered to be the end result of a
doodle. They are highly detailed, explicit drawings, cartoons and
computer-generated images that look real and depict horrific scenes of
child sexual abuse, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley,
North and Sefton, East made clear in his remarks. This is not about
generally cracking down on artistic doodles or on art, but about
cracking down on a loophole that the police and others who deal with
child protection are increasingly drawing to the attention of policy
makers and Government. We should be taking that seriously."

How would the silly cow know unless she has been looking at them?

2017-03-07 09:26:05 UTC

On Mon, 6 Mar 2017 10:36:30 -0800 (PST), "R. Mark Clayton"

Post by Tom G

What harm are peedyfiles doing by looking at pictures? Don't give me
that bollocks about it feeding a market, nearly all the stuff they get
nicked for they get for free off the Internet.

If I eat a nice juicy steak for my dinner, I know that for this to happen a cow had to be slaughtered somewhere. I am not a veggie and accept humane animal slaughter as the price of a meat diet.
Similarly if you want to spend your time looking a pictures of children be defiled, you have to realise that to be able to that, some child somewhere had to be sexually abused to create the images and that you are in part responsible for that happening.

Responsible, too, for children being blown to bits with British bombs
in the Middle East? Double standards? Hypocrisy, much?

MM

2017-03-07 09:21:57 UTC

Post by Yellow
If you are going to do it, make sure it is right.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39175570

Another link I don't click on without knowing the summarised content.

I think you're pretty safe if it begins http://www.bbc.co.uk/ !

So why did it take me to a site full of pictures of naked children? Huh?
By the way, I just caught up with last week's Question Time. What a
dreadful episode that was. Especially the question about child porn,
quoting Chief Constable Bailey who said that people convicted of
possession of child porn shouldn't be sent to gaol unless assessed to be
a real threat to youngsters.
One after another, the fuckwits on the team including Labour's Dawn
Butler, Ming Campbell who must have forgotten that he was once a lawyer
and the worst ever Lord Chancellor Lynne Truss, condemned Mr Bailey
without actually seeming to understand the point he was making. Peter
Hitchens was reluctant to fall into line behind his team mates and
showed a glimmer of understanding of the nature of the problem.

For once, it was obvious that he was choosing his words ~very~
carefully, in case anyone denounced him, too.

MM

Yellow

2017-03-06 12:08:23 UTC

Post by Yellow
If you are going to do it, make sure it is right.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39175570

Another link I don't click on without knowing the summarised content.

I think you're pretty safe if it begins http://www.bbc.co.uk/ !

But I don't think MM's problem is the safety of the link, he just likes
to argue. :-)

pullgees

2017-03-06 13:58:47 UTC

Post by Yellow
If you are going to do it, make sure it is right.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39175570

Another link I don't click on without knowing the summarised content.

I think you're pretty safe if it begins http://www.bbc.co.uk/ !
--
Ian

LOL!

Yellow

2017-03-06 12:06:22 UTC

Post by Yellow
If you are going to do it, make sure it is right.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39175570

Another link I don't click on without knowing the summarised content.

And you think I care - why?

burfordTjustice

2017-03-06 12:31:45 UTC

On Mon, 06 Mar 2017 10:46:23 +0000

Post by Yellow
If you are going to do it, make sure it is right.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39175570

Another link I don't click on without knowing the summarised content.
MM

Typical socialist always wanting someone else to do the lifting./

Mike Swift

2017-03-06 00:37:51 UTC

Post by Yellow
If you are going to do it, make sure it is right.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39175570

Leave him alone, he's the best person to lead the Labour party, and keep
them out of office for years.

Mike

--
Michael Swift We do not regard Englishmen as foreigners.
Kirkheaton We look on them only as rather mad Norwegians.
Yorkshire Halvard Lange

Yellow

2017-03-06 11:44:22 UTC

In article <***@ntlworld.com>, ***@yeton.co.uk
says...

Post by Yellow
If you are going to do it, make sure it is right.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39175570

Leave him alone, he's the best person to lead the Labour party, and keep
them out of office for years.

I was catching up on a couple of weeks worth of This Week last night and
Portillo I think made a comment that it was good that Labour beat UKIP
in the recent by-elections as it keeps Corbyn as leader and will win the
Tories another term.

Myself, I just want Corbyn around long enough to give us Brexit and the
future after that can look after itself.

2017-03-07 09:12:55 UTC

Post by Yellow
says...

Post by Yellow
If you are going to do it, make sure it is right.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39175570

Leave him alone, he's the best person to lead the Labour party, and keep
them out of office for years.

I was catching up on a couple of weeks worth of This Week last night and
Portillo I think made a comment that it was good that Labour beat UKIP
in the recent by-elections as it keeps Corbyn as leader and will win the
Tories another term.
Myself, I just want Corbyn around long enough to give us Brexit and the
future after that can look after itself.

Ah, so you fear Brexit may not actually happen!

Good one!

MM

Yellow

2017-03-07 10:49:26 UTC

Post by Yellow
says...

Post by Yellow
If you are going to do it, make sure it is right.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39175570

Leave him alone, he's the best person to lead the Labour party, and keep
them out of office for years.

I was catching up on a couple of weeks worth of This Week last night and
Portillo I think made a comment that it was good that Labour beat UKIP
in the recent by-elections as it keeps Corbyn as leader and will win the
Tories another term.
Myself, I just want Corbyn around long enough to give us Brexit and the
future after that can look after itself.

Ah, so you fear Brexit may not actually happen!
Good one!

The government is certainly having an easier ride because they have
Corbyn as the leader of the opposition, because he seems to
fundamentally support the leaving of the EU. At least that is what I
think.

But had a different leader been in place they may still have supported
the result of the referendum, but as that reality is not the one we have
- we will never know.

Dan S. MacAbre

2017-03-07 10:54:16 UTC

Post by Yellow
says...

Post by Yellow
If you are going to do it, make sure it is right.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39175570

Leave him alone, he's the best person to lead the Labour party, and keep
them out of office for years.

I was catching up on a couple of weeks worth of This Week last night and
Portillo I think made a comment that it was good that Labour beat UKIP
in the recent by-elections as it keeps Corbyn as leader and will win the
Tories another term.
Myself, I just want Corbyn around long enough to give us Brexit and the
future after that can look after itself.

Ah, so you fear Brexit may not actually happen!
Good one!

I think he dislikes it because he believes that globalisation makes rich
people richer, and poor people poorer, and the EU is a sort of 'step in
that direction'. It's said that he had to delete lots of his personal
web site, after being persuaded to be more enthusiastic about the EU
(although that's just something I read - never having seen the removed
pages). But yes, I think you can tell from his manner that he doesn't
really like it.

Post by Yellow
But had a different leader been in place they may still have supported
the result of the referendum, but as that reality is not the one we have
- we will never know.

tim...

2017-03-07 11:09:02 UTC

Post by Yellow
says...

Post by Yellow
If you are going to do it, make sure it is right.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39175570

Leave him alone, he's the best person to lead the Labour party, and keep
them out of office for years.

I was catching up on a couple of weeks worth of This Week last night and
Portillo I think made a comment that it was good that Labour beat UKIP
in the recent by-elections as it keeps Corbyn as leader and will win the
Tories another term.
Myself, I just want Corbyn around long enough to give us Brexit and the
future after that can look after itself.

Ah, so you fear Brexit may not actually happen!
Good one!

I think he dislikes it because he believes that globalisation makes rich
people richer, and poor people poorer, and the EU is a sort of 'step in
that direction'. It's said that he had to delete lots of his personal web
site, after being persuaded to be more enthusiastic about the EU (although
that's just something I read - never having seen the removed pages). But
yes, I think you can tell from his manner that he doesn't really like it.

The weird thing is that the Unions ought to dislike it for exactly the same
reason

but they support it because they see it as a backdoor way of forcing through
Union friendly (note that's Union, not worker) legislation when the local
administration is against such action.

So selfish of them

tim

Dan S. MacAbre

2017-03-07 11:32:03 UTC

Post by Yellow
says...

Post by Yellow
If you are going to do it, make sure it is right.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39175570

Leave him alone, he's the best person to lead the Labour party, and keep
them out of office for years.

I was catching up on a couple of weeks worth of This Week last night and
Portillo I think made a comment that it was good that Labour beat UKIP
in the recent by-elections as it keeps Corbyn as leader and will win the
Tories another term.
Myself, I just want Corbyn around long enough to give us Brexit and the
future after that can look after itself.

Ah, so you fear Brexit may not actually happen!
Good one!

I think he dislikes it because he believes that globalisation makes
rich people richer, and poor people poorer, and the EU is a sort of
'step in that direction'. It's said that he had to delete lots of his
personal web site, after being persuaded to be more enthusiastic about
the EU (although that's just something I read - never having seen the
removed pages). But yes, I think you can tell from his manner that he
doesn't really like it.

The weird thing is that the Unions ought to dislike it for exactly the
same reason

I was in a union years ago. I didn't really want to be (the meetings
were very unpleasant), but I was very young and too scared to be the
only one not joining. All of the members were of the 'coming over here,
taking our jobs' type. So yes, it seems odd (at least to me) to see the
union leadership being pro-immigration.

Post by tim...
but they support it because they see it as a backdoor way of forcing
through Union friendly (note that's Union, not worker) legislation when
the local administration is against such action.
So selfish of them
tim

Yellow

2017-03-07 13:36:53 UTC

Post by Yellow
says...

Post by Yellow
If you are going to do it, make sure it is right.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39175570

Leave him alone, he's the best person to lead the Labour party, and keep
them out of office for years.

I was catching up on a couple of weeks worth of This Week last night and
Portillo I think made a comment that it was good that Labour beat UKIP
in the recent by-elections as it keeps Corbyn as leader and will win the
Tories another term.
Myself, I just want Corbyn around long enough to give us Brexit and the
future after that can look after itself.

Ah, so you fear Brexit may not actually happen!
Good one!

I haven't heard the bit about him having to delete stuff from his
website - interesting.

Post by Yellow
But had a different leader been in place they may still have supported
the result of the referendum, but as that reality is not the one we have
- we will never know.

Dan S. MacAbre

2017-03-07 14:13:26 UTC

Post by Yellow
says...

Post by Yellow
If you are going to do it, make sure it is right.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39175570

Leave him alone, he's the best person to lead the Labour party, and keep
them out of office for years.

I was catching up on a couple of weeks worth of This Week last night and
Portillo I think made a comment that it was good that Labour beat UKIP
in the recent by-elections as it keeps Corbyn as leader and will win the
Tories another term.
Myself, I just want Corbyn around long enough to give us Brexit and the
future after that can look after itself.

Ah, so you fear Brexit may not actually happen!
Good one!

I haven't heard the bit about him having to delete stuff from his
website - interesting.

I can't think of good search terms, but I found this. It's the
Telegraph, so probably a bit hostile.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12184405/Jeremy-Corbyn-accused-of-rewriting-history-after-deleting-hundreds-of-outspoken-articles-and-speeches-from-his-website.html

Post by Yellow
But had a different leader been in place they may still have supported
the result of the referendum, but as that reality is not the one we have
- we will never know.

Yellow

2017-03-07 16:03:00 UTC

Post by Yellow
says...

Post by Yellow
If you are going to do it, make sure it is right.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39175570

Leave him alone, he's the best person to lead the Labour party, and keep
them out of office for years.

I was catching up on a couple of weeks worth of This Week last night and
Portillo I think made a comment that it was good that Labour beat UKIP
in the recent by-elections as it keeps Corbyn as leader and will win the
Tories another term.
Myself, I just want Corbyn around long enough to give us Brexit and the
future after that can look after itself.

Ah, so you fear Brexit may not actually happen!
Good one!

I haven't heard the bit about him having to delete stuff from his
website - interesting.

I can't think of good search terms, but I found this. It's the
Telegraph, so probably a bit hostile.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12184405/Jeremy-Corbyn-accused-of-rewriting-history-after-deleting-hundreds-of-outspoken-articles-and-speeches-from-his-website.html

Thank you. So our instincts were correct, he is a leaver at heart.

And how different it would have been had Ed Miliband remained leader.

Post by Yellow
But had a different leader been in place they may still have supported
the result of the referendum, but as that reality is not the one we have
- we will never know.

Ian Jackson

2017-03-07 17:36:48 UTC

Post by Yellow
says...

Post by Yellow
If you are going to do it, make sure it is right.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39175570

Leave him alone, he's the best person to lead the Labour party, and keep
them out of office for years.

I was catching up on a couple of weeks worth of This Week last night and
Portillo I think made a comment that it was good that Labour beat UKIP
in the recent by-elections as it keeps Corbyn as leader and will win the
Tories another term.
Myself, I just want Corbyn around long enough to give us Brexit and the
future after that can look after itself.

Ah, so you fear Brexit may not actually happen!
Good one!

I haven't heard the bit about him having to delete stuff from his
website - interesting.

I can't think of good search terms, but I found this. It's the
Telegraph, so probably a bit hostile.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12184405/Jeremy-
Corbyn-accused-of-rewriting-history-after-deleting-hundreds-of-outspoke
n-articles-and-speeches-from-his-website.html

Thank you. So our instincts were correct, he is a leaver at heart.
And how different it would have been had Ed Miliband remained leader.

And even MORE different of David Milliband had been leader.

--
Ian

Yellow

2017-03-07 19:01:51 UTC

Post by Yellow
says...

Post by Yellow
If you are going to do it, make sure it is right.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39175570

Leave him alone, he's the best person to lead the Labour party, and keep
them out of office for years.

I was catching up on a couple of weeks worth of This Week last night and
Portillo I think made a comment that it was good that Labour beat UKIP
in the recent by-elections as it keeps Corbyn as leader and will win the
Tories another term.
Myself, I just want Corbyn around long enough to give us Brexit and the
future after that can look after itself.

Ah, so you fear Brexit may not actually happen!
Good one!

I haven't heard the bit about him having to delete stuff from his
website - interesting.

I can't think of good search terms, but I found this. It's the
Telegraph, so probably a bit hostile.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12184405/Jeremy-
Corbyn-accused-of-rewriting-history-after-deleting-hundreds-of-outspoke
n-articles-and-speeches-from-his-website.html

Thank you. So our instincts were correct, he is a leaver at heart.
And how different it would have been had Ed Miliband remained leader.

And even MORE different of David Milliband had been leader.

Indeed. Wouldn't that have made Britain a different place today.

2017-03-08 12:34:31 UTC

Post by Yellow
Indeed. Wouldn't that have made Britain a different place today.

Yes, no hateful abuse by Brexiters towards people of colour, people
with an accent, and foreigners in general.

A pound that would still be worth something.

Optimism for the future of Britain.

UKIP would be dead and buried.

And so on. A much better, nicer country than the legacy the Brexiters
are leaving us.

MM

Yellow

2017-03-08 13:39:12 UTC

Post by Yellow
Indeed. Wouldn't that have made Britain a different place today.

Yes, no hateful abuse by Brexiters towards people of colour, people
with an accent, and foreigners in general.
A pound that would still be worth something.
Optimism for the future of Britain.
UKIP would be dead and buried.

How so?

Post by MM
And so on. A much better, nicer country than the legacy the Brexiters
are leaving us.

R. Mark Clayton

2017-03-08 18:34:52 UTC

snip

Post by MM
UKIP would be dead and buried.

How so?

Their long standing, mostly likeable and very eloquent leader quits.
A new leader is elected and quits.
Another new leader is elected and mires himself in lies about 96 deaths.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-14562573
The new leader stands in the most leave seat in the country and loses to the shambles that is Labour.
Their chief financial backer stops funding.
Factions seek to expel their only MP.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/27/ukip-open-civil-war-nigel-farage-calls-douglas-carswell-thrown/
Victims of their own success so to speak all their MEP's will get off the Brussels gravy train in 2019 - so no paid for offices, fat salaries etc.
There is no real consensus within the party about anything except quitting the EU.

So it probably will be dead in a few years. I want to put a wooden stake through its rotten heart before it is buried.

tim...

2017-03-09 11:45:25 UTC

Post by R. Mark Clayton
snip

Post by MM
UKIP would be dead and buried.

How so?

Their long standing, mostly likeable and very eloquent leader quits.

you seem to have missed the premise that it was D. Milliband instead of E.
Milliband who was leader at the point of the last election.

and the possible presumption that he would have taken the Labour party to
election victory (FSVO)

on that basis UKIP would not have made the choices that it has since the
referendum (because there would have been no referendum)

tim

2017-03-09 11:20:10 UTC

Post by Yellow
Indeed. Wouldn't that have made Britain a different place today.

Yes, no hateful abuse by Brexiters towards people of colour, people
with an accent, and foreigners in general.
A pound that would still be worth something.
Optimism for the future of Britain.
UKIP would be dead and buried.

How so?

Look where it is now -- and that's AFTER it won the referendum! Do
you honestly think UKIP has any chance at all come the next election?
Chance, that is, of winning seats in parliament, not just getting
votes?

MM

Dan S. MacAbre

2017-03-09 11:26:10 UTC

Post by Yellow
Indeed. Wouldn't that have made Britain a different place today.

Yes, no hateful abuse by Brexiters towards people of colour, people
with an accent, and foreigners in general.
A pound that would still be worth something.
Optimism for the future of Britain.
UKIP would be dead and buried.

How so?

I wonder how they would do if there was some kind of PR?

tim...

2017-03-09 12:03:19 UTC

Post by Yellow
Indeed. Wouldn't that have made Britain a different place today.

Yes, no hateful abuse by Brexiters towards people of colour, people
with an accent, and foreigners in general.
A pound that would still be worth something.
Optimism for the future of Britain.
UKIP would be dead and buried.

How so?

I wonder how they would do if there was some kind of PR?

hold the balance of power and make arse-holes of themselves

like they have done, so far, in every council where they have achieved any
influence

they aren't a group with a common ideology other than supporting Brexit, and
once they are taken off that pitch they squabble like a bunch of gannets.

tim

Dan S. MacAbre

2017-03-09 12:11:55 UTC

Post by Yellow
Indeed. Wouldn't that have made Britain a different place today.

Yes, no hateful abuse by Brexiters towards people of colour, people
with an accent, and foreigners in general.
A pound that would still be worth something.
Optimism for the future of Britain.
UKIP would be dead and buried.

How so?

I wonder how they would do if there was some kind of PR?

hold the balance of power and make arse-holes of themselves
like they have done, so far, in every council where they have achieved
any influence
they aren't a group with a common ideology other than supporting Brexit,
and once they are taken off that pitch they squabble like a bunch of
gannets.
tim

I was just wondering if parties like UKIP are an argument for or against
PR? MM mentioned the other day that we should have PR, but might it not
actually give a party like UKIP more influence? I honestly don't know,
but I'm sure that people generally say that it gives smaller parties
more influence, as long as people vote for them in significant numbers.

Handsome Jack

2017-03-09 13:22:28 UTC

Post by Dan S. MacAbre
I was just wondering if parties like UKIP are an argument for or
against PR? MM mentioned the other day that we should have PR, but
might it not actually give a party like UKIP more influence?

More influence than they have now? Yes, and that is exactly what is good
about PR.

--
Jack

Dan S. MacAbre

2017-03-09 13:36:19 UTC

More influence than they have now? Yes, and that is exactly what is good
about PR.

In addition, I think that fewer people would consider a vote that isn't
for the big two to be a wasted vote, so I expect their vote share would
increase. 20's Germany is a kind of warning against PR, but I expect
the main reason we don't have it is that the big parties have an
interest in prolonging the current circus.

Yellow

2017-03-09 15:07:01 UTC

More influence than they have now? Yes, and that is exactly what is good
about PR.

All the versions of PR that get put forward seem to have flaws that
leave you wondering if they are any better than the system we have.

Not having your own named representative, representatives being picked
from lists in the party's order of preference, minor parties getting
major policies through the few voted for, major parties being blocked
from major policies by the minor parties.

Of course there are positives too but I just think that "they" have
failed to convince the public.

2017-03-11 09:16:27 UTC

More influence than they have now? Yes, and that is exactly what is good
about PR.

All the versions of PR that get put forward seem to have flaws that
leave you wondering if they are any better than the system we have.
Not having your own named representative, representatives being picked
from lists in the party's order of preference, minor parties getting
major policies through the few voted for, major parties being blocked
from major policies by the minor parties.
Of course there are positives too but I just think that "they" have
failed to convince the public.

The *British* public do not understand what the positives are, e.g. a
fairer voting system -- see UKIP's votes versus seats! The majority
of the British electorate, kippers as well as sensible people, do not
understand what PR is, and yet they've been using the system for the
European Parliament elections for years.

Isn't it strange how so many people vote for something they do not
understand, using a voting system they don't understand either? An
excellent example, in fact, of the blind leading the blind, like
recursive insanity for which the only cure is death by natural causes.

We Remainers just wait...
... and watch...

MM

2017-03-11 09:10:40 UTC

More influence than they have now? Yes, and that is exactly what is good
about PR.

Don't forget that the situation in Germany back then was entirely
different to that which we now have in the UK. Back then, millions
(around 5 million, I believe) of Germans were out of work, in a much
smaller population. There were soup kitchens and hyperinflation. It
really is not rocket science to understand why there was such a mass
movement of support for the Nazi Party, which promised jobs and food,
and even a People's Car than anyone could afford to buy. And then
Hitler delivered on most of those promises. He could take advantage of
the, for Germany, terrible Versailles Treaty, the terms of which were
seen by many Germans as a form of betrayal. He promised them their
sovereignty back!

MM

Ian Jackson

2017-03-09 13:59:02 UTC

More influence than they have now? Yes, and that is exactly what is
good about PR.

As we all know, UKIP were indeed robbed at the general election. As a
Liberal supporter, I can fully sympathise with their situation.

--
Ian

2017-03-11 09:03:11 UTC

More influence than they have now? Yes, and that is exactly what is good
about PR.

But they are never tested. They never have to put their money where
their (very vociferous) mouth is. No one really knows how they'd fare
in government. My feeling is that they would be constantly facing
exclusion from the House for contravening various rules. In contrast,
the European Parliament is remakably tolerant of Nigel Farage's
outrageous outbursts. The HoC would not be so forgiving. The public
would note this and start revising their opinions of UKIP, and by
extension of the entire raison d'être of its one plank: Leaving the
EU.

MM

2017-03-11 08:57:58 UTC

Post by Yellow
Indeed. Wouldn't that have made Britain a different place today.

Yes, no hateful abuse by Brexiters towards people of colour, people
with an accent, and foreigners in general.
A pound that would still be worth something.
Optimism for the future of Britain.
UKIP would be dead and buried.

How so?

I wonder how they would do if there was some kind of PR?

hold the balance of power and make arse-holes of themselves
like they have done, so far, in every council where they have achieved
any influence
they aren't a group with a common ideology other than supporting Brexit,
and once they are taken off that pitch they squabble like a bunch of
gannets.
tim

I think it would be a real eyeopener for the braindead UKIP supporters
to finally be made to wake up and smell the coffee, by observing a
heavily UKIP-influenced House of Commons in action. PR could bring
this about.

MM

Yellow

2017-03-09 12:35:22 UTC

Post by Yellow
Indeed. Wouldn't that have made Britain a different place today.

Yes, no hateful abuse by Brexiters towards people of colour, people
with an accent, and foreigners in general.
A pound that would still be worth something.
Optimism for the future of Britain.
UKIP would be dead and buried.

How so?

I wonder how they would do if there was some kind of PR?

hold the balance of power and make arse-holes of themselves
like they have done, so far, in every council where they have achieved any
influence
they aren't a group with a common ideology other than supporting Brexit, and
once they are taken off that pitch they squabble like a bunch of gannets.

The UKIP councillors in my area are doing OK, tending to act more like
independents. It is very Tory round here, and it was the LibDems as a
second choice and just the odd Green or Labour winner.

But now, people who do not want to vote Tory are tending to vote for the
UKIP candidates and we have been lucky enough to have a few good ones.

tim...

2017-03-09 13:37:01 UTC

Post by tim...
hold the balance of power and make arse-holes of themselves
like they have done, so far, in every council where they have achieved any
influence
they aren't a group with a common ideology other than supporting Brexit, and
once they are taken off that pitch they squabble like a bunch of gannets.

The UKIP councillors in my area are doing OK, tending to act more like
independents.

but how many of them are there (relative to the size of the council)

one or two, or a number that can hold the balance of power, or even
minority/majority control

There are a few places where they have the letter, and AFAICT in all of them
the have been a shambles.

tim

Yellow

2017-03-09 14:53:10 UTC

The UKIP councillors in my area are doing OK, tending to act more like
independents.

but how many of them are there (relative to the size of the council)

Honestly, I am not sure. I'll go look and from the council websites....

County council - Conservative 43, UKIP 10, LibDem 7, Labour 6,
Independent 3, vacancies 2.

Local council - Conservatives 16, UKIP 8, Labour 3, Independent 2.

Parish council - Conservative 4, UKIP 9, Labour 2.

Post by tim...
one or two, or a number that can hold the balance of power, or even
minority/majority control

The thing is I think, that we only hear about the basket cases.

Last year we were fighting a big planning application that almost the
entire community were against. The Tories (including our MP) as a group
were in favour and offered us no help whatsoever, even though they were
our representatives, but the UKIP folks helped us organise and put in
quite a bit of leg work.

We lost of course because the local council has a Tory majority but not
all UKIP folk are religious/racist/homophobic lunatics and some are just
people.

Post by tim...
There are a few places where they have the letter, and AFAICT in all of them
the have been a shambles.
tim

Ian Jackson

2017-03-09 12:58:06 UTC

Post by Yellow
Indeed. Wouldn't that have made Britain a different place today.

Yes, no hateful abuse by Brexiters towards people of colour, people
with an accent, and foreigners in general.
A pound that would still be worth something.
Optimism for the future of Britain.
UKIP would be dead and buried.

How so?

I wonder how they would do if there was some kind of PR?

hold the balance of power and make arse-holes of themselves
like they have done, so far, in every council where they have achieved
any influence
they aren't a group with a common ideology other than supporting
Brexit, and once they are taken off that pitch they squabble like a
bunch of gannets.

But a lot of those who would probably never vote for UKIP in a hundred
years still took note of what they (and particularly the extremely
persuasive Nigel Farage) said.

--
Ian

2017-03-11 08:55:38 UTC

Post by Yellow
Indeed. Wouldn't that have made Britain a different place today.

Yes, no hateful abuse by Brexiters towards people of colour, people
with an accent, and foreigners in general.
A pound that would still be worth something.
Optimism for the future of Britain.
UKIP would be dead and buried.

How so?

I wonder how they would do if there was some kind of PR?

Ah, then they would do much better. But why did they not campaign for
PR long ago? I tell you why: It's because they're just as brain-dead
as most of their supporters -- apologies if this includes you.

MM

tim...

2017-03-09 11:45:55 UTC

Post by Yellow
Indeed. Wouldn't that have made Britain a different place today.

Yes, no hateful abuse by Brexiters towards people of colour, people
with an accent, and foreigners in general.
A pound that would still be worth something.
Optimism for the future of Britain.
UKIP would be dead and buried.

How so?

Look where it is now -- and that's AFTER it won the referendum! Do
you honestly think UKIP has any chance at all come the next election?

nope

but that wasn't the question that was asked

tim

Yellow

2017-03-09 12:30:01 UTC

Post by Yellow
Indeed. Wouldn't that have made Britain a different place today.

Yes, no hateful abuse by Brexiters towards people of colour, people
with an accent, and foreigners in general.
A pound that would still be worth something.
Optimism for the future of Britain.
UKIP would be dead and buried.

How so?

Look where it is now

What has "where we are now" got to do with an alternative time line
where we did not have a referendum or if we did, one where the Labour
leadership were stance remoaners?

Post by MM
-- and that's AFTER it won the referendum! Do
you honestly think UKIP has any chance at all come the next election?

This is a different discussion, but I do believe UKIP will get votes if
the Tories do not follow through on Brexit.

Post by MM
Chance, that is, of winning seats in parliament, not just getting
votes?

It would depend on how badly the Tories fuck up and whether or not UKIP
pull themselves together. At this stage, both are unknowns.

The Todal

2017-03-07 11:12:59 UTC

Post by Yellow
says...

Post by Yellow
If you are going to do it, make sure it is right.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39175570

Leave him alone, he's the best person to lead the Labour party, and keep
them out of office for years.

I was catching up on a couple of weeks worth of This Week last night and
Portillo I think made a comment that it was good that Labour beat UKIP
in the recent by-elections as it keeps Corbyn as leader and will win the
Tories another term.
Myself, I just want Corbyn around long enough to give us Brexit and the
future after that can look after itself.

Ah, so you fear Brexit may not actually happen!
Good one!

The government is certainly having an easier ride because they have
Corbyn as the leader of the opposition, because he seems to
fundamentally support the leaving of the EU. At least that is what I
think.
But had a different leader been in place they may still have supported
the result of the referendum, but as that reality is not the one we have
- we will never know.

The government is having a relatively easy ride, but the ride has hardly
begun. Governments never tell the people what the real plan is. I
sympathise with those who believe that UKIP must remain in place so that
if there is backsliding on Brexit the campaign to leave the EU can
resume with passion and intensity.

The views of the Labour Party are virtually an irrelevance. I think a
likely scenario is that our economists, bankers, civil servants,
mandarins, diplomats will currently be advising the government in the
strongest of terms that leaving the EU will be a disaster for the UK.
Whether that prediction is true or not is irrelevant - Theresa May isn't
now going to go running to Michael Gove or David Davis to ask them for
their own economic projections. The government makes policies based on
forecasts and the only forecasters who predict golden pastures and sunny
uplands from Brexit are a handful of mavericks.

There is plenty of time for the government to devise a strategy to
extricate the nation from the referendum decision. Even if the
electorate wanted to punish the Tories for such backsliding, there is no
party which has a Leave policy - except for UKIP. UKIP is a joke, but
like a rusting Luftwaffe bomb it needs to be treated with a certain
degree of respect and dismantled safely so that the government can get
on with its real agenda.

It's arguable that Labour has a Leave policy but I find it unconvincing.
It's a pragmatic policy based on retaining support from its core voters.
It is inconceivable that Labour will adopt a resolute and entrenched
Leave policy. As a party that seeks power, it too wants to rely on
forecasts from the reliable economic experts.

Yellow

2017-03-07 13:50:24 UTC

In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@icloud.com
says...

Post by Yellow
says...

Post by Yellow
If you are going to do it, make sure it is right.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39175570

Leave him alone, he's the best person to lead the Labour party, and keep
them out of office for years.

I was catching up on a couple of weeks worth of This Week last night and
Portillo I think made a comment that it was good that Labour beat UKIP
in the recent by-elections as it keeps Corbyn as leader and will win the
Tories another term.
Myself, I just want Corbyn around long enough to give us Brexit and the
future after that can look after itself.

Ah, so you fear Brexit may not actually happen!
Good one!

The government is certainly having an easier ride because they have
Corbyn as the leader of the opposition, because he seems to
fundamentally support the leaving of the EU. At least that is what I
think.
But had a different leader been in place they may still have supported
the result of the referendum, but as that reality is not the one we have
- we will never know.

The government is having a relatively easy ride, but the ride has hardly
begun. Governments never tell the people what the real plan is. I
sympathise with those who believe that UKIP must remain in place so that
if there is backsliding on Brexit the campaign to leave the EU can
resume with passion and intensity.
The views of the Labour Party are virtually an irrelevance. I think a
likely scenario is that our economists, bankers, civil servants,
mandarins, diplomats will currently be advising the government in the
strongest of terms that leaving the EU will be a disaster for the UK.
Whether that prediction is true or not is irrelevant - Theresa May isn't
now going to go running to Michael Gove or David Davis to ask them for
their own economic projections. The government makes policies based on
forecasts and the only forecasters who predict golden pastures and sunny
uplands from Brexit are a handful of mavericks.
There is plenty of time for the government to devise a strategy to
extricate the nation from the referendum decision. Even if the
electorate wanted to punish the Tories for such backsliding, there is no
party which has a Leave policy - except for UKIP. UKIP is a joke, but
like a rusting Luftwaffe bomb it needs to be treated with a certain
degree of respect and dismantled safely so that the government can get
on with its real agenda.
It's arguable that Labour has a Leave policy but I find it unconvincing.
It's a pragmatic policy based on retaining support from its core voters.
It is inconceivable that Labour will adopt a resolute and entrenched
Leave policy. As a party that seeks power, it too wants to rely on
forecasts from the reliable economic experts.

Interesting to read your view.

Myself - I think all we can do is sit and wait to see what happens
because I think what the government (or should that be the government
and the HoLs?) does next and then next and then next will to a large
degree shape how the political parties respond.

And then you have to throw into the mix whether the public will continue
to support leaving the EU or not, as that will further shape the
response of the political parties, their makeup and their policies.

Labour is a mess, UKIP is a basket case, the LibDems are a joke and the
Tories are in power - today. But things can change....

Personally however, I think public support will continue and I think we
will leave the EU.

2017-03-08 13:53:13 UTC

Post by Yellow
Labour is a mess, UKIP is a basket case, the LibDems are a joke and the
Tories are in power - today. But things can change....

I don't recognise the Lib Dems as a joke when in the Copeland
by-election they secured a rise of +3.8 while Labour fell to -4.9 and
UKIP down to -9.0.

In the Stoke-on-Trent Central by-election, Labour's support fell to
-2.2 while the Lib Dems went up to +5.7, a figure that is over two
times higher than for either the Tories or UKIP.

MM

Vidcapper

2017-03-08 15:38:37 UTC

Post by Yellow
Labour is a mess, UKIP is a basket case, the LibDems are a joke and the
Tories are in power - today. But things can change....

Their support fell to less than zero? Corbyn really is a millstone... :p

--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

Sid

2017-03-08 15:45:24 UTC

Post by Yellow
Labour is a mess, UKIP is a basket case, the LibDems are a joke and the
Tories are in power - today. But things can change....

Their support fell to less than zero? Corbyn really is a millstone... :p

A few attention seeking post back. MM posted that Corbyn was PM.

Now he is dreaming the LD's will be in power.

If MM has an MRI scan what do you suppose they might find. ?

A cabbage.

--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

Ophelia

2017-03-08 16:43:46 UTC

Post by Yellow
Labour is a mess, UKIP is a basket case, the LibDems are a joke and the
Tories are in power - today. But things can change....

--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

Sid

2017-03-08 16:48:15 UTC

Post by Yellow
Labour is a mess, UKIP is a basket case, the LibDems are a joke and the
Tories are in power - today. But things can change....

Ophelia

2017-03-08 17:45:14 UTC

"Sid" wrote in message news:o9pcke$f8f$***@news.albasani.net...

Sid, what newsreader are you using now? I see you have the chevrons

Windows Live Mail.

====

So do I but version is all:) You were using a different version to the one
you are using now?

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

Sid

2017-03-08 17:47:20 UTC

"Ophelia" wrote in message news:***@mid.individual.net...

"Sid" wrote in message news:o9pcke$f8f$***@news.albasani.net...

Sid, what newsreader are you using now? I see you have the chevrons

Windows Live Mail.

====

So do I but version is all:) You were using a different version to the one
you are using now?

Um Probably I am on a old laptop that i restored an image to.

Then downloaded a version of Windows Live
Version 2012 (Build 16.4.3528.0331) is the one I am using now.

Not sure of the version I used before.

--

Ophelia

2017-03-08 18:36:03 UTC

"Sid" wrote in message news:o9pg38$bbj$***@news.albasani.net...

"Ophelia" wrote in message news:***@mid.individual.net...

"Sid" wrote in message news:o9pcke$f8f$***@news.albasani.net...

Sid, what newsreader are you using now? I see you have the chevrons

Windows Live Mail.

====

So do I but version is all:) You were using a different version to the one
you are using now?

Um Probably I am on a old laptop that i restored an image to.

Then downloaded a version of Windows Live
Version 2012 (Build 16.4.3528.0331) is the one I am using now.

Not sure of the version I used before.

==

Well you have lost your chevrons anyway <g>

--
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

tim...

2017-03-09 11:49:54 UTC

Post by Ophelia
===
Sid, what newsreader are you using now? I see you have the chevrons?

Oh dear!

double click on the message (that's Sid's message, not mine) to open it

select File - Properties.

select the Details tab.

scroll down until you find the line that starts "X-Newsreader:"

tim

Ophelia

2017-03-09 13:56:07 UTC

Post by Ophelia
===
Sid, what newsreader are you using now? I see you have the chevrons?

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

R. Mark Clayton

2017-03-08 18:40:38 UTC

On Wednesday, 8 March 2017 15:45:25 UTC, Sid wrote:
SNIP

Post by Sid
A few attention seeking post back. MM posted that Corbyn was PM.

What?

Post by Sid
Now he is dreaming the LD's will be in power

AGAIN. As they were from 2010 - 2015.

Post by Sid
If MM has an MRI scan what do you suppose they might find. ?
A cabbage.

No need for an MRI scan in your case - you can't hold your head up because you and it are so dense it must be full of concrete.

Oh dear I am slipping to "sid's" level :-(

Sid

2017-03-08 20:02:10 UTC

"R. Mark Clayton" wrote in message news:5feaa171-20d1-49f0-9ad4-***@googlegroups.com...

On Wednesday, 8 March 2017 15:45:25 UTC, Sid wrote:
SNIP

Post by Sid
A few attention seeking post back. MM posted that Corbyn was PM.

What?

Post by Sid
Now he is dreaming the LD's will be in power

AGAIN. As they were from 2010 - 2015.

Post by Sid
If MM has an MRI scan what do you suppose they might find. ?
A cabbage.

No need for an MRI scan in your case - you can't hold your head up because
you and it are so dense it must be full of concrete.

Oh dear I am slipping to "sid's" level :-(

That's why I am a winner and you are a loser.

This is a newsgroup. Unlike some of the posters here I know its make believe
and not real life.

Or I might drive To Manchester and teach you some manners. -;(

R. Mark Clayton

2017-03-09 16:35:42 UTC

Post by R. Mark Clayton
SNIP

Post by Sid
A few attention seeking post back. MM posted that Corbyn was PM.

What?

Post by Sid
Now he is dreaming the LD's will be in power

AGAIN. As they were from 2010 - 2015.

Post by Sid
If MM has an MRI scan what do you suppose they might find. ?
A cabbage.

No need for an MRI scan in your case - you can't hold your head up because
you and it are so dense it must be full of concrete.
Oh dear I am slipping to "sid's" level :-(
That's why I am a winner and you are a loser.
This is a newsgroup. Unlike some of the posters here I know its make believe
and not real life.
Or I might drive To Manchester and teach you some manners. -;(

OTOH I don't do silly threats...

Sid

2017-03-09 18:17:28 UTC

Post by Sid
This is a newsgroup. Unlike some of the posters here I know its make believe
and not real life.
Or I might drive To Manchester and teach you some manners. -;(

OTOH I don't do silly threats...

Nor do I , There is a smiley at the end of the line.

--

Yellow

2017-03-08 19:47:40 UTC

Post by Yellow
Labour is a mess, UKIP is a basket case, the LibDems are a joke and the
Tories are in power - today. But things can change....

I don't recognise the Lib Dems as a joke

I bet you do not recognise your own hand in front of your face ether.

Vidcapper

2017-03-09 08:04:39 UTC

Post by Yellow
Labour is a mess, UKIP is a basket case, the LibDems are a joke and the
Tories are in power - today. But things can change....

I don't recognise the Lib Dems as a joke

I bet you do not recognise your own hand in front of your face ether.

Being on ether *would* explain quite a lot about the LibDems... :p

--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

Yellow

2017-03-09 12:24:51 UTC

In article <B08wA.52750$***@fx13.am4>, ***@yahoo.co.uk
says...

Post by Vidcapper

Post by Yellow
Labour is a mess, UKIP is a basket case, the LibDems are a joke and the
Tories are in power - today. But things can change....

I don't recognise the Lib Dems as a joke

I bet you do not recognise your own hand in front of your face ether.

Being on ether *would* explain quite a lot about the LibDems... :p

You are not wrong. :-)

tim...

2017-03-09 11:54:12 UTC

Post by Yellow
Labour is a mess, UKIP is a basket case, the LibDems are a joke and the
Tories are in power - today. But things can change....

I don't recognise the Lib Dems as a joke

I bet you do not recognise your own hand in front of your face ether.

to be fair, they still have influence in a fair few councils

and that fact means that they have the motivated ground force to get out the
vote in places where they do have a chance of winning

something that UKIP considerably lack

Yellow

2017-03-09 12:38:52 UTC

Post by Yellow
Labour is a mess, UKIP is a basket case, the LibDems are a joke and the
Tories are in power - today. But things can change....

I don't recognise the Lib Dems as a joke

I bet you do not recognise your own hand in front of your face ether.

to be fair, they still have influence in a fair few councils
and that fact means that they have the motivated ground force to get out the
vote in places where they do have a chance of winning

Tim Farron was guest of the day on The Daily Politics on Monday so they
were interviewing folks on the street in Cornwall. Not scientific but
interesting, and if they were representative, the LibDems are still
toast around there.

And while they never had first place round here, they are still in the
dog house.

But of course, things change.

Post by tim...
something that UKIP considerably lack

Yes - a good point.

tim...

2017-03-07 16:20:20 UTC

Post by Yellow
says...

Post by Yellow
If you are going to do it, make sure it is right.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39175570

Leave him alone, he's the best person to lead the Labour party, and keep
them out of office for years.

I was catching up on a couple of weeks worth of This Week last night and
Portillo I think made a comment that it was good that Labour beat UKIP
in the recent by-elections as it keeps Corbyn as leader and will win the
Tories another term.
Myself, I just want Corbyn around long enough to give us Brexit and the
future after that can look after itself.

Ah, so you fear Brexit may not actually happen!
Good one!

The government is certainly having an easier ride because they have
Corbyn as the leader of the opposition, because he seems to
fundamentally support the leaving of the EU. At least that is what I
think.
But had a different leader been in place they may still have supported
the result of the referendum, but as that reality is not the one we have
- we will never know.

but it is

past opinions have been discredited

all future predictions will be taken with a bucket of salt

Post by The Todal
- Theresa May isn't now going to go running to Michael Gove or David Davis
to ask them for their own economic projections.

I bet you she does

They seem to have won the argument over leaving the Custom's Union, which to
me, seems the simplest way of resolving all of the main trade difficulties
whilst addressing the immigration "problem".

It does, of course, mean that we couldn't negotiate our own trade deals and
the fact that the CU is to be dumped means that that other option has won.

Post by The Todal
The government makes policies based on forecasts and the only forecasters
who predict golden pastures and sunny uplands from Brexit are a handful of
mavericks.

No-one is predicting sunny uplands. The aim is to make sure that the ship
doesn't sink whilst keeping on board all of the anti-immigration voters who
will otherwise vote against you in 2020.

Post by The Todal
There is plenty of time for the government to devise a strategy to
extricate the nation from the referendum decision.

only if it wants to lose the 20202 election

Post by The Todal
Even if the electorate wanted to punish the Tories for such backsliding,
there is no party which has a Leave policy - except for UKIP. UKIP is a
joke,

that is true

I wouldn't want them to be in power

but that wont stop the aggrieved Leavers voting for them

tim

Yellow

2017-03-07 17:20:23 UTC

Post by The Todal
The government makes policies based on forecasts and the only forecasters
who predict golden pastures and sunny uplands from Brexit are a handful of
mavericks.

No-one is predicting sunny uplands. The aim is to make sure that the ship
doesn't sink whilst keeping on board all of the anti-immigration voters who
will otherwise vote against you in 2020.

This is also Gina Miller's line as, to paraphrase as I am too lazy to go
find the quote, she said "Parliament should only vote to leave the EU if
the deal puts us in a better position than we are now".

But that is a perversion.

For a start we are back to having to define "better" or "sunnier" or
"golden" or whatever other meaningless word is applied, but even without
that distraction - no one ever said leaving the EU would be blanket
"better".

It simply gives us different opportunities; different pros *and*
different cons.

And yes, we hope it will lead us to a richer future, both financially
and emotionally, but the key work here is different - that is what we
voted for.

Post by The Todal
There is plenty of time for the government to devise a strategy to
extricate the nation from the referendum decision.

only if it wants to lose the 20202 election

Post by The Todal
Even if the electorate wanted to punish the Tories for such backsliding,
there is no party which has a Leave policy - except for UKIP. UKIP is a
joke,

that is true
I wouldn't want them to be in power
but that wont stop the aggrieved Leavers voting for them

Indeed it will.

Yellow

2017-03-07 17:21:39 UTC

Post by The Todal
The government makes policies based on forecasts and the only forecasters
who predict golden pastures and sunny uplands from Brexit are a handful of
mavericks.

No-one is predicting sunny uplands. The aim is to make sure that the ship
doesn't sink whilst keeping on board all of the anti-immigration voters who
will otherwise vote against you in 2020.

This is also Gina Miller's line as, to paraphrase as I am too lazy to go
find the quote, she said "Parliament should only vote to leave the EU if
the deal puts us in a better position than we are now".
But that is a perversion.
For a start we are back to having to define "better" or "sunnier" or
"golden" or whatever other meaningless word is applied, but even without
that distraction - no one ever said leaving the EU would be blanket
"better".
It simply gives us different opportunities; different pros *and*
different cons.
And yes, we hope it will lead us to a richer future, both financially
and emotionally, but the key work here is different - that is what we
voted for.

Actually - want to amend that to say a richer and fairer future.

2017-03-08 13:43:26 UTC

Post by Yellow
says...

Post by Yellow
If you are going to do it, make sure it is right.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39175570

Leave him alone, he's the best person to lead the Labour party, and keep
them out of office for years.

I was catching up on a couple of weeks worth of This Week last night and
Portillo I think made a comment that it was good that Labour beat UKIP
in the recent by-elections as it keeps Corbyn as leader and will win the
Tories another term.
Myself, I just want Corbyn around long enough to give us Brexit and the
future after that can look after itself.

Ah, so you fear Brexit may not actually happen!
Good one!

The government is certainly having an easier ride because they have
Corbyn as the leader of the opposition, because he seems to
fundamentally support the leaving of the EU. At least that is what I
think.
But had a different leader been in place they may still have supported
the result of the referendum, but as that reality is not the one we have
- we will never know.

It seems, though, that the PM doesn't listen to any advice that is
contrary to Brexit. She is convinced that Brexit will be 100%
successful and therefore cannot also listen to economists, bankers etc
who tell her different. She has, in fact, with her "Brexit means
Brexit" or "Red, White and Blue Brexit" painted herself into an
ever-shrinking corner as first the High Court, then the Supreme Court
and now the House of Lords impose conditions which she was
fundamentally opposed to all along.

Post by The Todal
Whether that prediction is true or not is irrelevant - Theresa May isn't
now going to go running to Michael Gove or David Davis to ask them for
their own economic projections. The government makes policies based on
forecasts and the only forecasters who predict golden pastures and sunny
uplands from Brexit are a handful of mavericks.

Nevertheless, in all her public statements it's the mavericks who seem
to have the PM's ear.

Post by The Todal
There is plenty of time for the government to devise a strategy to
extricate the nation from the referendum decision. Even if the
electorate wanted to punish the Tories for such backsliding, there is no
party which has a Leave policy - except for UKIP. UKIP is a joke, but
like a rusting Luftwaffe bomb it needs to be treated with a certain
degree of respect and dismantled safely so that the government can get
on with its real agenda.

Some WWII bombs cannot be defused, but are removed to a wide open
space and blown up.

Post by The Todal
It's arguable that Labour has a Leave policy but I find it unconvincing.
It's a pragmatic policy based on retaining support from its core voters.
It is inconceivable that Labour will adopt a resolute and entrenched
Leave policy. As a party that seeks power, it too wants to rely on
forecasts from the reliable economic experts.

I think you can write off Labour in its current form. Under Corbyn it
is rudderless, the mast has snapped off, and the sailors keep jumping
ship. Instead, the party of opposition we should be concentrating on
is the Liberal Democratic party, which is now in the ascendancy, as
recent by-elections showed.

MM

Dan S. MacAbre

2017-03-06 11:49:33 UTC

Post by Yellow
If you are going to do it, make sure it is right.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39175570

Leave him alone, he's the best person to lead the Labour party, and keep
them out of office for years.
Mike

Traditionally, it's been the opposing parties that dig up dirt on
politicians; but in the case of JC, I tend to imagine that some eminence
grise within the labour party is behind it.

JNugent

2017-03-06 14:36:14 UTC

Post by Yellow
If you are going to do it, make sure it is right.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39175570

Leave him alone, he's the best person to lead the Labour party, and keep
them out of office for years.
Mike

Traditionally, it's been the opposing parties that dig up dirt on
politicians; but in the case of JC, I tend to imagine that some eminence
grise within the labour party is behind it.

Guido was all over this one the moment it was published.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

2017-03-07 09:13:27 UTC

Post by Yellow
If you are going to do it, make sure it is right.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39175570

Leave him alone, he's the best person to lead the Labour party, and keep
them out of office for years.
Mike

Traditionally, it's been the opposing parties that dig up dirt on
politicians; but in the case of JC, I tend to imagine that some eminence
grise within the labour party is behind it.

Maybe there isn't anything to find?

MM

Dan S. MacAbre

2017-03-07 09:57:28 UTC

Post by Yellow
If you are going to do it, make sure it is right.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39175570

Leave him alone, he's the best person to lead the Labour party, and keep
them out of office for years.
Mike

Traditionally, it's been the opposing parties that dig up dirt on
politicians; but in the case of JC, I tend to imagine that some eminence
grise within the labour party is behind it.

Maybe there isn't anything to find?
MM

Look hard enough and you'll always find something. Or you can just make
something up :-)

JNugent

2017-03-06 14:33:21 UTC

Post by Yellow
If you are going to do it, make sure it is right.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39175570

"Labour 'confident' Jeremy Corbyn paid right amount of tax"

That's politician-speak for "not confident at all".

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

The Todal

2017-03-06 15:38:50 UTC

Post by Yellow
If you are going to do it, make sure it is right.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39175570

As a fervent Corbyn supporter and member of Momentum, I am continually
surprised by the amateurish way that Corbyn and his team issue their
announcements and press releases. It's almost as if they want to look
even less competent than Donald J. Trump.

It ought surely to be possible to find a couple of intelligent people
with a decent education to form a public relations/press office team for
Labour's leader, and check and approve the documents and the
announcements and to prepare for possible hostile questioning. John
McDonnell's excuse that we've always been backbenchers and we aren't
used to the responsibilities of shadow cabinet office is now wearing
very threadbare and I can see his arse handing out of his trousers.

So, again as a loyal Corbyn supporter, I really wish that someone with
more political skill who has not tarnished their reputation with cynical
plots and right wing statements could show himself or herself and make a
dignified, polite leadership challenge that does not involve mass
resignations and sulks.

It isn't a matter of left wing versus right wing. It's simply about
competence. As I mentioned in a thread in another group, as a Labour
Party member I know from experience that the Labour Party is continuing
to purge extreme left wingers from its ranks. Young (and some old)
earnest idealists who happen to be in Marxist discussion groups, even
those that do not put up candidates against the Labour Party, are
notified that they are ineligible for membership of the Labour Party
under its rulebook and are hereby expelled with no right of appeal and
no right to re-apply for membership until five years have passed. They
complain bitterly that they have canvassed and leafletted for the party
and helped elect Labour candidates but it is to no avail. Corbyn does
not attempt to interfere with this process in any way. And I don't
really blame him but I do think that the press is way off the mark when
they pretend that he's an extreme left winger trying to infiltrate other
extreme left wingers into the Labour Party - it's simply untrue.

Yellow

2017-03-06 21:30:52 UTC

In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@icloud.com
says...

Post by Yellow
If you are going to do it, make sure it is right.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39175570

Post by The Todal
It ought surely to be possible to find a couple of intelligent people
with a decent education to form a public relations/press office team for
Labour's leader, and check and approve the documents and the
announcements and to prepare for possible hostile questioning. John
McDonnell's excuse that we've always been backbenchers and we aren't
used to the responsibilities of shadow cabinet office is now wearing
very threadbare and I can see his arse handing out of his trousers.
So, again as a loyal Corbyn supporter, I really wish that someone with
more political skill who has not tarnished their reputation with cynical
plots and right wing statements could show himself or herself and make a
dignified, polite leadership challenge that does not involve mass
resignations and sulks.
It isn't a matter of left wing versus right wing. It's simply about
competence. As I mentioned in a thread in another group, as a Labour
Party member I know from experience that the Labour Party is continuing
to purge extreme left wingers from its ranks. Young (and some old)
earnest idealists who happen to be in Marxist discussion groups, even
those that do not put up candidates against the Labour Party, are
notified that they are ineligible for membership of the Labour Party
under its rulebook and are hereby expelled with no right of appeal and
no right to re-apply for membership until five years have passed. They
complain bitterly that they have canvassed and leafletted for the party
and helped elect Labour candidates but it is to no avail. Corbyn does
not attempt to interfere with this process in any way. And I don't
really blame him but I do think that the press is way off the mark when
they pretend that he's an extreme left winger trying to infiltrate other
extreme left wingers into the Labour Party - it's simply untrue.

Ophelia

2017-03-07 12:21:22 UTC

"Yellow" wrote in message news:***@News.Individual.NET...

In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@icloud.com
says...

Post by Yellow
If you are going to do it, make sure it is right.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39175570

It is the same with UKIP. As every new story came out about Paul Nuttall
all you could do watch agog.

How can these people be this amateurish/stupid/imcompetent and still
remember to breath?

And they want to run the country.
====

I can't speak for Labour and I don't like Nuttall, but that was a set up to
ensure he didn't win that election. Labour had to win somewhere ....

Yes it (apparently) was on his website but the perpetrator admitted it was
her fault and resigned.

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

Yellow

2017-03-07 13:59:05 UTC

In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@gmail.com
says...

Post by Yellow
says...

Post by Yellow
If you are going to do it, make sure it is right.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39175570

I am extremely disappointed by Paul Nuttall.

Post by Yellow
but that was a set up to
ensure he didn't win that election.

I do think Paul Nuttall would have been "picked on" (how old am I?)
regardless but he really did not need to make it so frigging easy!

It was like watching an old fashioned farce and I kept waiting for
Frankie Howerd to jump out and say how tittered he was.

Post by Yellow
Labour had to win somewhere ....

And in the event, it was probably better for progressing Brexit that
Labour did win, if it helps keep Corbyn in power.

Post by Yellow
Yes it (apparently) was on his website but the perpetrator admitted it was
her fault and resigned.

Yes, and it may well even be true that it was her error, but
unfortunately for Nuttall, it was his responsibility to checked every
word himself.

Ophelia

2017-03-07 16:00:17 UTC

"Yellow" wrote in message news:***@News.Individual.NET...

In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@gmail.com
says...

Post by Yellow
says...

Post by Yellow
If you are going to do it, make sure it is right.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39175570

I am extremely disappointed by Paul Nuttall.

Post by Yellow
but that was a set up to
ensure he didn't win that election.

Post by Yellow
Labour had to win somewhere ....

And in the event, it was probably better for progressing Brexit that
Labour did win, if it helps keep Corbyn in power.

* I can't disagree with that.

Post by Yellow
Yes it (apparently) was on his website but the perpetrator admitted it was
her fault and resigned.

Yes, and it may well even be true that it was her error, but
unfortunately for Nuttall, it was his responsibility to checked every
word himself.

* True! I think he is a waste of time. I doubt they will get
anywhere
until Farage returns.

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

Yellow

2017-03-07 16:20:18 UTC

In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@gmail.com
says...

Post by Ophelia
I can't speak for Labour and I don't like Nuttall,

I am extremely disappointed by Paul Nuttall.

Post by Ophelia
but that was a set up to
ensure he didn't win that election.

I do think Paul Nuttall would have been "picked on" (how old am I?)
regardless but he really did not need to make it so frigging easy!
It was like watching an old fashioned farce and I kept waiting for
Frankie Howerd to jump out and say how tittered he was.
* lol Did you see the pic James Harris posted of him ??

No, I don't think I did. I have just gone through the posts of his I
still have locally on my computer and no sign of a link so that passed
me by.

Post by Ophelia
Labour had to win somewhere ....

And in the event, it was probably better for progressing Brexit that
Labour did win, if it helps keep Corbyn in power.
* I can't disagree with that.

Post by Ophelia
Yes it (apparently) was on his website but the perpetrator admitted it was
her fault and resigned.

Yes, and it may well even be true that it was her error, but
unfortunately for Nuttall, it was his responsibility to checked every
word himself.
* True! I think he is a waste of time. I doubt they will get
anywhere
until Farage returns.

I don't think we have seen the last of him, if Brexit gets mucked about
with, but he seems a bit more interested in the USA and just general
shit stirring in Europe at the moment.

Someone locally, must have been in a local paper but am not sure, was
complaining that he is still our MEP and should therefore be MEP-ing.

I do take the view that the only reason people voted UKIP at the EU
elections was to signal that they wanted to leave but it still leaves me
a little uncomfortable to think he is taking the cash while now, just
working on his own agenda.

Ophelia

2017-03-07 21:39:44 UTC