UKIP supporter 'duped' into voting for rival party

Bucks Free Press: UKIP supporter 'duped' into voting for rival party UKIP supporter 'duped' into voting for rival party

A UKIP supporter claims he was 'duped' into voting for an obscure party with a similar name.

Wycombe resident Stephen Boyes said he was ‘frustrated and annoyed’ after realising he and his wife voted for An Independence from Europe Party instead of the UK Independence Party.

Incensed and concerned other voters could fall foul of the “misleading” name and slogan on the paper, he wrote to The Electoral Commission to complain.

The 69-year-old said: “The ballot paper had about 20 different parties on it, folded into four parts, and the top one was An Independence from Europe Party with the slogan ‘UK Independence Now’.

“It was very confusing and we ended up voting for the wrong party. I think it is wrong a party can be allowed to have such a similar name as another party.

“It is misleading and, it appears to me, it was a deliberate ploy by AIEP to put the ‘an’ at the front of their name to get to the top of the list and grab votes.”

Responding to Mr Boyes’ complaint, the commission said AIEP passed a number of its tests, as set out by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, and the two names were sufficiently different.

In an email, it said: “Neither the party name An Independence from Europe nor the description, UK Independence Now, was already on the register.

“We also considered the test of whether the name and description could result in voters confusing them with names or descriptions that are already registered.

“We decided that although there are some overlapping words, the party name and description are sufficiently different from those registered by the UK Independence Party (UKIP) to mean that, in our opinion, voters were not likely to confuse them with the UKIP name and descriptions.”

Wycombe’s UKIP Parliamentary candidate David Meacock said the commission’s failure to act meant ‘our democracy is being undermined’.

He added: “Just a casual look at both the circumstances surrounding the formation of AIEP as well as its identical colour scheme shows that the AIEP is clearly intended to imitate UKIP.”

Brian Mapletoft, Chairman of Wycombe UKIP, urged residents to “take extra care” when casting their vote in the European Parliament Elections on May 22.

The Eurosceptic AIE party was set up by former MEP Mike Nattrass after he was deselected as a UKIP candidate for the upcoming elections.

Comments (111)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:21pm Wed 14 May 14

Dr Truth says...

What a load of old pony. As with all important forms and documents if you pay the relevant amount of attention, i.e. more than zero, you should not find yourself duped.
What a load of old pony. As with all important forms and documents if you pay the relevant amount of attention, i.e. more than zero, you should not find yourself duped. Dr Truth
  • Score: 11

5:34pm Wed 14 May 14

pennman says...

Should have gone to specsavers!
Or perhaps he should have paid attention. Grade 'A' pillock.
Should have gone to specsavers! Or perhaps he should have paid attention. Grade 'A' pillock. pennman
  • Score: 8

8:34pm Wed 14 May 14

Lucky Eddie says...

Just show how thick you have to be, to want to voke UKIP
Just show how thick you have to be, to want to voke UKIP Lucky Eddie
  • Score: -34

10:00pm Wed 14 May 14

Average Bloke says...

Lucky Eddie wrote:
Just show how thick you have to be, to want to voke UKIP
Obviously not as thick as someone that wants to show how 'voke' things.
[quote][p][bold]Lucky Eddie[/bold] wrote: Just show how thick you have to be, to want to voke UKIP[/p][/quote]Obviously not as thick as someone that wants to show how 'voke' things. Average Bloke
  • Score: 47

10:54pm Wed 14 May 14

Bartholomew HuckleBerry says...

"Keyboard warrior" now that's an original piece compliment I have not heard before. The fact is that another idiot is backing another just goes to show that you do not have to be a UKIP supporter too be a stupid, dumb fool. What are peoples' political views based upon then, Mark69 if not their character and personality? I refuse to hold a keyboard war with an imbecile buffoon like you so that would be all !
"Keyboard warrior" now that's an original piece compliment I have not heard before. The fact is that another idiot is backing another just goes to show that you do not have to be a UKIP supporter too be a stupid, dumb fool. What are peoples' political views based upon then, Mark69 if not their character and personality? I refuse to hold a keyboard war with an imbecile buffoon like you so that would be all ! Bartholomew HuckleBerry
  • Score: -22

11:48pm Wed 14 May 14

Mark69 says...

Bartholomew HuckleBerry wrote:
"Keyboard warrior" now that's an original piece compliment I have not heard before. The fact is that another idiot is backing another just goes to show that you do not have to be a UKIP supporter too be a stupid, dumb fool. What are peoples' political views based upon then, Mark69 if not their character and personality? I refuse to hold a keyboard war with an imbecile buffoon like you so that would be all !
Someone who hides behind a false name spouting insults instead of making a contribution to society, what a pathetic life you must lead.
[quote][p][bold]Bartholomew HuckleBerry[/bold] wrote: "Keyboard warrior" now that's an original piece compliment I have not heard before. The fact is that another idiot is backing another just goes to show that you do not have to be a UKIP supporter too be a stupid, dumb fool. What are peoples' political views based upon then, Mark69 if not their character and personality? I refuse to hold a keyboard war with an imbecile buffoon like you so that would be all ![/p][/quote]Someone who hides behind a false name spouting insults instead of making a contribution to society, what a pathetic life you must lead. Mark69
  • Score: 19

12:13am Thu 15 May 14

Mark69 says...

Not that you will be interested, but I was always under the impression that political views and a persons outlook on life could shaped by any number of factors such as upbringing, education, parents, friends, travel experiences, the list could go on.

People of poor character can hold mainstream political beliefs you know, and by the same token, people of good character may hold minority beliefs that you and I do not necessarily share.
Not that you will be interested, but I was always under the impression that political views and a persons outlook on life could shaped by any number of factors such as upbringing, education, parents, friends, travel experiences, the list could go on. People of poor character can hold mainstream political beliefs you know, and by the same token, people of good character may hold minority beliefs that you and I do not necessarily share. Mark69
  • Score: 14

12:38am Thu 15 May 14

AgentMorty says...

The law was changed years ago after the Lib Dems suffered at the hands of a Literal Democrat. It is why you now have party logo's on the ballot paper.

However this voter shouldn't feel too disheartened as it looks like they are a more sensible anti EU party! Maybe this new An Independence from Europe Party will elect MEP's who will actually turn up and do the work unlike UKIP MEP's who are the laziest in Europe.

http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/news/article-
2626937/Ukip-MEPs-la
ziest-Europe-missing
-debates-Cameron-war
ns-UK-needs-politici
ans-turn-up.html

They also seem to agree with the principles behind the NHS rather than UKIP who want to see more privatisation of it.
The law was changed years ago after the Lib Dems suffered at the hands of a Literal Democrat. It is why you now have party logo's on the ballot paper. However this voter shouldn't feel too disheartened as it looks like they are a more sensible anti EU party! Maybe this new An Independence from Europe Party will elect MEP's who will actually turn up and do the work unlike UKIP MEP's who are the laziest in Europe. http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 2626937/Ukip-MEPs-la ziest-Europe-missing -debates-Cameron-war ns-UK-needs-politici ans-turn-up.html They also seem to agree with the principles behind the NHS rather than UKIP who want to see more privatisation of it. AgentMorty
  • Score: -16

9:01am Thu 15 May 14

Average Bloke says...

AgentMorty wrote:
Maybe this new An Independence from Europe Party will elect MEP's who will actually turn up and do the work unlike UKIP MEP's who are the laziest in Europe.
It has been stated many times and would therefore be obvious to most, that UKIP want’s the EU Commission, and the EU Parliament dissolved. UKIP does not support the idea of unelected bureaucrats making decisions that affect the British people.
AgentMorty wrote:
They also seem to agree with the principles behind the NHS rather than UKIP who want to see more privatisation of it.

UKIP does not ‘want to see more privatisation of the NHS’, nor does it intend to ‘dismantle the NHS’ (quoted by others).
UKIP’s ambition for the NHS is to remove layers of “wasteful bureaucracy” and make it a far more efficient organisation.

County health boards would get a per capita grant from Whitehall and make local health decisions, be locally accountable, set and monitor care standards (under a Francis-style “universal duty of care”), organise basic nurse training and negotiate contracts under a simplified procurement system that no longer favours the big health contractors.

Free teeth and specs tests will be restored. “Prevention or early detection is almost always cost effective,

UKIP remains wedded to the core NHS principle - free at point of use according to need, not wallet – UKIP believes that we can learn from those Johnny Foreigners (no health tourism for them!), not from the US health model, but from Australia or Germany.
[quote][bold] AgentMorty [/bold] wrote: Maybe this new An Independence from Europe Party will elect MEP's who will actually turn up and do the work unlike UKIP MEP's who are the laziest in Europe. [/quote] It has been stated many times and would therefore be obvious to most, that UKIP want’s the EU Commission, and the EU Parliament dissolved. UKIP does not support the idea of unelected bureaucrats making decisions that affect the British people. [quote][bold] AgentMorty [/bold] wrote: They also seem to agree with the principles behind the NHS rather than UKIP who want to see more privatisation of it. [/quote] UKIP does not ‘want to see more privatisation of the NHS’, nor does it intend to ‘dismantle the NHS’ (quoted by others). UKIP’s ambition for the NHS is to remove layers of “wasteful bureaucracy” and make it a far more efficient organisation. County health boards would get a per capita grant from Whitehall and make local health decisions, be locally accountable, set and monitor care standards (under a Francis-style “universal duty of care”), organise basic nurse training and negotiate contracts under a simplified procurement system that no longer favours the big health contractors. Free teeth and specs tests will be restored. “Prevention or early detection is almost always cost effective, UKIP remains wedded to the core NHS principle - free at point of use according to need, not wallet – UKIP believes that we can learn from those Johnny Foreigners (no health tourism for them!), not from the US health model, but from Australia or Germany. Average Bloke
  • Score: 16

9:19am Thu 15 May 14

CatherineAB says...

Maybe it pays to read the whole thing before one commits oneself? Not too difficult, one would think?
Maybe it pays to read the whole thing before one commits oneself? Not too difficult, one would think? CatherineAB
  • Score: 6

9:42am Thu 15 May 14

Average Bloke says...

AgentMorty wrote:
They also seem to agree with the principles behind the NHS rather than UKIP who want to see more privatisation of it.

It might be worth taking a look at what has happened to A&E at High Wycombe, along with other NHS services under both Labour and current Conservative rule.
If you're happy with all of this, then by all means vote for them again.
[quote][bold] AgentMorty [/bold] wrote: They also seem to agree with the principles behind the NHS rather than UKIP who want to see more privatisation of it. [/quote] It might be worth taking a look at what has happened to A&E at High Wycombe, along with other NHS services under both Labour and current Conservative rule. If you're happy with all of this, then by all means vote for them again. Average Bloke
  • Score: 19

11:19am Thu 15 May 14

Scarletto says...

Silly billies for even trying to vote for the UK Isolation Party.
They've cornered most of the loony vote plus nutters, ex-BNP supporters, redneck fed-up Tories and Tarquin Strangely-Browne.
Silly billies for even trying to vote for the UK Isolation Party. They've cornered most of the loony vote plus nutters, ex-BNP supporters, redneck fed-up Tories and Tarquin Strangely-Browne. Scarletto
  • Score: -14

11:25am Thu 15 May 14

Average Bloke says...

Scarletto wrote:
Silly billies for even trying to vote for the UK Isolation Party.
They've cornered most of the loony vote plus nutters, ex-BNP supporters, redneck fed-up Tories and Tarquin Strangely-Browne.
With nothing constructive to offer, and without the ability to debate the issues that face this country, the anti-UKIP brigade revert to mud-slinging and name calling.

Come on Scarletto, you've been better than that in the past. Intelligent debate used to be one of your stronger points. But resorting to this? Really?
[quote][p][bold]Scarletto[/bold] wrote: Silly billies for even trying to vote for the UK Isolation Party. They've cornered most of the loony vote plus nutters, ex-BNP supporters, redneck fed-up Tories and Tarquin Strangely-Browne.[/p][/quote]With nothing constructive to offer, and without the ability to debate the issues that face this country, the anti-UKIP brigade revert to mud-slinging and name calling. Come on Scarletto, you've been better than that in the past. Intelligent debate used to be one of your stronger points. But resorting to this? Really? Average Bloke
  • Score: 17

11:49am Thu 15 May 14

thethe says...

If you are too stupid to understand the ballot paper you shouldn't be allowed to vote.
If you are too stupid to understand the ballot paper you shouldn't be allowed to vote. thethe
  • Score: -3

12:43pm Thu 15 May 14

mistamina says...

Average Bloke wrote:
AgentMorty wrote:
They also seem to agree with the principles behind the NHS rather than UKIP who want to see more privatisation of it.

It might be worth taking a look at what has happened to A&E at High Wycombe, along with other NHS services under both Labour and current Conservative rule.
If you're happy with all of this, then by all means vote for them again.
Come on! Labour are not even on on the radar in Bucks. you lot out polled them at the last elections...........
....even i as a newby know THIS.
You have a sizable number of Councillors, where is the difference you made??
[quote][p][bold]Average Bloke[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold] AgentMorty [/bold] wrote: They also seem to agree with the principles behind the NHS rather than UKIP who want to see more privatisation of it. [/quote] It might be worth taking a look at what has happened to A&E at High Wycombe, along with other NHS services under both Labour and current Conservative rule. If you're happy with all of this, then by all means vote for them again.[/p][/quote]Come on! Labour are not even on on the radar in Bucks. you lot out polled them at the last elections........... ....even i as a newby know THIS. You have a sizable number of Councillors, where is the difference you made?? mistamina
  • Score: -8

12:52pm Thu 15 May 14

Average Bloke says...

mistamina wrote:
Average Bloke wrote:
AgentMorty wrote:
They also seem to agree with the principles behind the NHS rather than UKIP who want to see more privatisation of it.

It might be worth taking a look at what has happened to A&E at High Wycombe, along with other NHS services under both Labour and current Conservative rule.
If you're happy with all of this, then by all means vote for them again.
Come on! Labour are not even on on the radar in Bucks. you lot out polled them at the last elections...........

....even i as a newby know THIS.
You have a sizable number of Councillors, where is the difference you made??
Labour were in power in 2005 when High Wycombe A&E was closed. The Conservatives (& LibDems) now in power, have continued with the destruction of A&E facilities across the entire UK.
UKIP bear zero responsibility for these closures and the destruction of the NHS.
[quote][p][bold]mistamina[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Average Bloke[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold] AgentMorty [/bold] wrote: They also seem to agree with the principles behind the NHS rather than UKIP who want to see more privatisation of it. [/quote] It might be worth taking a look at what has happened to A&E at High Wycombe, along with other NHS services under both Labour and current Conservative rule. If you're happy with all of this, then by all means vote for them again.[/p][/quote]Come on! Labour are not even on on the radar in Bucks. you lot out polled them at the last elections........... ....even i as a newby know THIS. You have a sizable number of Councillors, where is the difference you made??[/p][/quote]Labour were in power in 2005 when High Wycombe A&E was closed. The Conservatives (& LibDems) now in power, have continued with the destruction of A&E facilities across the entire UK. UKIP bear zero responsibility for these closures and the destruction of the NHS. Average Bloke
  • Score: 21

2:14pm Thu 15 May 14

BucksComment says...

Stupid man
Stupid man BucksComment
  • Score: -2

3:28pm Thu 15 May 14

mistamina says...

Mr Bloke,
Please let others have a rant, you had yours.
I am most interested in 'The UK is in crisis on many fronts and topics', which bits of the sky are these?
The economy, generating exports, immorality in the City, Banks and traders, USA buying us out wholesale, number of Romanian immigrants just waiting for the Conservatives to get into power again, shortage of hospital beds, hospital staff, transport, laborers?
More importantly, how will you sort these out?
Please do not say ''wait and see, we will sort these out'', we are too close to the EU elections; i need to know if you are a good, solid, socially aware party.
Convince me.
Mr Bloke, Please let others have a rant, you had yours. I am most interested in 'The UK is in crisis on many fronts and topics', which bits of the sky are these? The economy, generating exports, immorality in the City, Banks and traders, USA buying us out wholesale, number of Romanian immigrants just waiting for the Conservatives to get into power again, shortage of hospital beds, hospital staff, transport, laborers? More importantly, how will you sort these out? Please do not say ''wait and see, we will sort these out'', we are too close to the EU elections; i need to know if you are a good, solid, socially aware party. Convince me. mistamina
  • Score: 2

4:05pm Thu 15 May 14

Average Bloke says...

mistamina wrote:
Mr Bloke,
Please let others have a rant, you had yours.
I am most interested in 'The UK is in crisis on many fronts and topics', which bits of the sky are these?
The economy, generating exports, immorality in the City, Banks and traders, USA buying us out wholesale, number of Romanian immigrants just waiting for the Conservatives to get into power again, shortage of hospital beds, hospital staff, transport, laborers?
More importantly, how will you sort these out?
Please do not say ''wait and see, we will sort these out'', we are too close to the EU elections; i need to know if you are a good, solid, socially aware party.
Convince me.
I haven’t ranted anywhere, I’ll leave the ranting to others.
However, to give brief answers to your questions:

The economy:
UKIP wants to see a fairer tax system for everyone. Initially raising the lower end threshold (£10,000) to a level (£13,00 maybe) that will take many more low paid workers out of tax completely. And from that point onwards, there would be a single rate of tax for all. At the moment (2014-15), taxpayers pay a basic rate of 20% up to £31,865, 40% from £31,866 to £150,000 and 45% above £150,000. In addition to this, everyone pays 12% National Insurance contributions. So the effective base rate for all tax payers is currently 32% (20% + 12%) for everything above the base threshold. UKIP would abolish this highly complex and often confusing system, with a single rate for all – current proposal is 31%. So everyone would get more of their earnings. Everybody benefits, and this encourages work.
On the same topic, employers NI contributions are currently 13.8% - This would be reduced or even abolished.
A simpler system would be easier to administer, requiring less bureaucracy, and therefore lower admin costs. It will also be easier and less costly for companies to employ people.
There would be a massive crack-down on tax avoidance and tax evasion, because the complexity of the current tax system would be greatly simplified.

Zero hour contracts would be banished.

Just this tax simplification alone would stimulate greater employment, and therefore stimulate and boost the economy.

MP’s fiddling expenses or anything else deemed by the public to be illegal should be criminalised, and a fairer system of appropriate punishment should be introduced. Therefore, if you fiddle £90k in expenses, you’d serve time and pay it all back – Not carry on with your job and just pay back £5k.

Immigration is good for the UK, but needs to be controlled. – Look at the Australian model.

Hospitals & the NHS - UKIP’s ambition for the NHS is to remove layers of “wasteful bureaucracy” and make it a far more efficient organisation.
UKIP does not ‘want to see more privatisation of the NHS’, nor does it intend to ‘dismantle the NHS’
County health boards would get a per capita grant from Whitehall and make local health decisions, be locally accountable, set and monitor care standards (under a Francis-style “universal duty of care”), organise basic nurse training and negotiate contracts under a simplified procurement system that no longer favours the big health contractors.
Free teeth and specs tests will be restored. “Prevention or early detection is almost always cost effective,
UKIP remains wedded to the core NHS principle - free at point of use according to need, not wallet – UKIP believes that we can learn from those Johnny Foreigners (no health tourism for them!), not from the US health model, but from Australia or Germany.

Transport – UKIP is totally against HS2 and the waste of money that will entail, preferring instead to reinvigorate the current railway networks, and other public transport systems.

Maybe you'd like to consider some of these ideas, and vote UKIP now?
[quote][p][bold]mistamina[/bold] wrote: Mr Bloke, Please let others have a rant, you had yours. I am most interested in 'The UK is in crisis on many fronts and topics', which bits of the sky are these? The economy, generating exports, immorality in the City, Banks and traders, USA buying us out wholesale, number of Romanian immigrants just waiting for the Conservatives to get into power again, shortage of hospital beds, hospital staff, transport, laborers? More importantly, how will you sort these out? Please do not say ''wait and see, we will sort these out'', we are too close to the EU elections; i need to know if you are a good, solid, socially aware party. Convince me.[/p][/quote]I haven’t ranted anywhere, I’ll leave the ranting to others. However, to give brief answers to your questions: The economy: UKIP wants to see a fairer tax system for everyone. Initially raising the lower end threshold (£10,000) to a level (£13,00 maybe) that will take many more low paid workers out of tax completely. And from that point onwards, there would be a single rate of tax for all. At the moment (2014-15), taxpayers pay a basic rate of 20% up to £31,865, 40% from £31,866 to £150,000 and 45% above £150,000. In addition to this, everyone pays 12% National Insurance contributions. So the effective base rate for all tax payers is currently 32% (20% + 12%) for everything above the base threshold. UKIP would abolish this highly complex and often confusing system, with a single rate for all – current proposal is 31%. So everyone would get more of their earnings. Everybody benefits, and this encourages work. On the same topic, employers NI contributions are currently 13.8% - This would be reduced or even abolished. A simpler system would be easier to administer, requiring less bureaucracy, and therefore lower admin costs. It will also be easier and less costly for companies to employ people. There would be a massive crack-down on tax avoidance and tax evasion, because the complexity of the current tax system would be greatly simplified. Zero hour contracts would be banished. Just this tax simplification alone would stimulate greater employment, and therefore stimulate and boost the economy. MP’s fiddling expenses or anything else deemed by the public to be illegal should be criminalised, and a fairer system of appropriate punishment should be introduced. Therefore, if you fiddle £90k in expenses, you’d serve time and pay it all back – Not carry on with your job and just pay back £5k. Immigration is good for the UK, but needs to be controlled. – Look at the Australian model. Hospitals & the NHS - UKIP’s ambition for the NHS is to remove layers of “wasteful bureaucracy” and make it a far more efficient organisation. UKIP does not ‘want to see more privatisation of the NHS’, nor does it intend to ‘dismantle the NHS’ County health boards would get a per capita grant from Whitehall and make local health decisions, be locally accountable, set and monitor care standards (under a Francis-style “universal duty of care”), organise basic nurse training and negotiate contracts under a simplified procurement system that no longer favours the big health contractors. Free teeth and specs tests will be restored. “Prevention or early detection is almost always cost effective, UKIP remains wedded to the core NHS principle - free at point of use according to need, not wallet – UKIP believes that we can learn from those Johnny Foreigners (no health tourism for them!), not from the US health model, but from Australia or Germany. Transport – UKIP is totally against HS2 and the waste of money that will entail, preferring instead to reinvigorate the current railway networks, and other public transport systems. Maybe you'd like to consider some of these ideas, and vote UKIP now? Average Bloke
  • Score: 11

4:21pm Thu 15 May 14

Average Bloke says...

UPDATE :
Re: my post above.
Nigel Farage has recently revised the Tax policy and said that higher earners should pay 40%. So there would be two rates only.
[bold] UPDATE [/bold]: Re: my post above. Nigel Farage has recently revised the Tax policy and said that higher earners should pay 40%. So there would be two rates only. Average Bloke
  • Score: 5

5:46pm Thu 15 May 14

demoness the second says...

Average Bloke wrote:
mistamina wrote:
Average Bloke wrote:
AgentMorty wrote:
They also seem to agree with the principles behind the NHS rather than UKIP who want to see more privatisation of it.

It might be worth taking a look at what has happened to A&E at High Wycombe, along with other NHS services under both Labour and current Conservative rule.
If you're happy with all of this, then by all means vote for them again.
Come on! Labour are not even on on the radar in Bucks. you lot out polled them at the last elections...........


....even i as a newby know THIS.
You have a sizable number of Councillors, where is the difference you made??
Labour were in power in 2005 when High Wycombe A&E was closed. The Conservatives (& LibDems) now in power, have continued with the destruction of A&E facilities across the entire UK.
UKIP bear zero responsibility for these closures and the destruction of the NHS.
YET!!!!!

But UKIP represent everything that is small and petty and spiteful about this country.
They do not look at the big picture, have never been in power and no doubt think it is all too easy.
I am not defending the other 2 showers at all - but it will be a cold day in hell before I vote for a load of right wing bigots.
[quote][p][bold]Average Bloke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mistamina[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Average Bloke[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold] AgentMorty [/bold] wrote: They also seem to agree with the principles behind the NHS rather than UKIP who want to see more privatisation of it. [/quote] It might be worth taking a look at what has happened to A&E at High Wycombe, along with other NHS services under both Labour and current Conservative rule. If you're happy with all of this, then by all means vote for them again.[/p][/quote]Come on! Labour are not even on on the radar in Bucks. you lot out polled them at the last elections........... ....even i as a newby know THIS. You have a sizable number of Councillors, where is the difference you made??[/p][/quote]Labour were in power in 2005 when High Wycombe A&E was closed. The Conservatives (& LibDems) now in power, have continued with the destruction of A&E facilities across the entire UK. UKIP bear zero responsibility for these closures and the destruction of the NHS.[/p][/quote]YET!!!!! But UKIP represent everything that is small and petty and spiteful about this country. They do not look at the big picture, have never been in power and no doubt think it is all too easy. I am not defending the other 2 showers at all - but it will be a cold day in hell before I vote for a load of right wing bigots. demoness the second
  • Score: -1

5:55pm Thu 15 May 14

demoness the second says...

http://beforeitsnews
.com/eu/2014/05/ukip
-deputy-leader-calls
-for-end-of-nhs-2-25
59056.html

http://www.theguardi
an.com/politics/2014
/may/13/british-asia
n-ukip-supporter-qui
ts-party-racist-popu
lism-sanya-jeet-than
di


Nice...
http://beforeitsnews .com/eu/2014/05/ukip -deputy-leader-calls -for-end-of-nhs-2-25 59056.html http://www.theguardi an.com/politics/2014 /may/13/british-asia n-ukip-supporter-qui ts-party-racist-popu lism-sanya-jeet-than di Nice... demoness the second
  • Score: -1

5:56pm Thu 15 May 14

mistamina says...

Average Bloke wrote:
UPDATE :
Re: my post above.
Nigel Farage has recently revised the Tax policy and said that higher earners should pay 40%. So there would be two rates only.
OK Bloke, first, love your posture, your absolute certainty so erect. Wish i had that sort of conviction! So see if i got this right:
We have a 3-in-1 tier tax system. nothing upto £13.50. then 31%, and then 40%. The rich in Bucks will not like it. they will flee to Monaco or Burmuda or somewhere. But Average, that's them rich, it is not our concern.
Increase in NI? You may want to reconsider this. you cannot give with one hand and take with the other. Old style taxing shuffle. What about VAT, i assume when we leave the EU, VAT will drop back to 7.5%, as in pre-EU days?
Then, what will your import tax be from goods from Europe? it used to average at 13%. you will have to re-instate that. Will you re-introduce CAP Levy as well £17.60/100kilos?
I currently export beautiful white Bucks beech to Europe (My Germans love it!). Will you tax on green wood go to? Pre-EU it was 13.5%.
Massive crack-down on tax avoidance and tax evasion - tricky, you will end up spending more on chasing than collection. that is the way it is.
Removing layers of “wasteful bureaucracy” will need severe challenging of NHS managers, are you sure you have the wherewithall to take on these professionals?

Sorry bored myself now, gotta go.................i did say i do not have your absolute conviction!
[quote][p][bold]Average Bloke[/bold] wrote: [bold] UPDATE [/bold]: Re: my post above. Nigel Farage has recently revised the Tax policy and said that higher earners should pay 40%. So there would be two rates only.[/p][/quote]OK Bloke, first, love your posture, your absolute certainty so erect. Wish i had that sort of conviction! So see if i got this right: We have a 3-in-1 tier tax system. nothing upto £13.50. then 31%, and then 40%. The rich in Bucks will not like it. they will flee to Monaco or Burmuda or somewhere. But Average, that's them rich, it is not our concern. Increase in NI? You may want to reconsider this. you cannot give with one hand and take with the other. Old style taxing shuffle. What about VAT, i assume when we leave the EU, VAT will drop back to 7.5%, as in pre-EU days? Then, what will your import tax be from goods from Europe? it used to average at 13%. you will have to re-instate that. Will you re-introduce CAP Levy as well £17.60/100kilos? I currently export beautiful white Bucks beech to Europe (My Germans love it!). Will you tax on green wood go to? Pre-EU it was 13.5%. Massive crack-down on tax avoidance and tax evasion - tricky, you will end up spending more on chasing than collection. that is the way it is. Removing layers of “wasteful bureaucracy” will need severe challenging of NHS managers, are you sure you have the wherewithall to take on these professionals? Sorry bored myself now, gotta go.................i did say i do not have your absolute conviction! mistamina
  • Score: 2

7:05pm Thu 15 May 14

Average Bloke says...

Thanks mistamina.
I believe that UKIP is, by far, a party that listens to the people of this country, and have no intention of becoming elected dictators. They are also not perfect, but easily way better than what we have now. The current rabble are out of touch, and just don’t get it.

I made a cost typo, sorry – I’m not perfect either.

The UKIP proposed tax system would kick-in at a possible £13,000 level (not my typo of £13,00). Pay zero tax below that level. 31% flat rate above that, up to a possible £40,000, and then 40% on everything earned above that. Both of these rates include what is now called National Insurance Contributions (NI), so no, there is no suggestion of increasing NI, but abolishing it completely as a separate tax. It’s all combined within the previously mentioned two income tax rates.

VAT? – Other than a reduction in VAT, I’m not yet aware of any rates being proposed.

Trading with Europe – There will be no import or export duty on trade with Europe. No CAP Levies within Europe either. UKIP openly and repeatedly states that they want to revert back to the original concept of Free Trade within Europe with Europe, as a Common Market . Nothing more, nothing less. Simples.

There will be no additional taxes on your exports from Bucks to Europe.

Yes, we can take head on the NHS Expensive Quangos and greatly reduce wasteful bureaucracy.

UKIP are aiming to make this country fair for everyone.

Now maybe you’d like to vote for UKIP?
[bold] Thanks mistamina. [/bold] I believe that UKIP is, by far, a party that listens to the people of this country, and have no intention of becoming elected dictators. They are also not perfect, but easily way better than what we have now. The current rabble are out of touch, and just don’t get it. I made a cost typo, sorry – I’m not perfect either. The UKIP proposed tax system would kick-in at a possible £13,000 level (not my typo of £13,00). Pay zero tax below that level. 31% flat rate above that, up to a possible £40,000, and then 40% on everything earned above that. Both of these rates include what is now called National Insurance Contributions (NI), so no, there is no suggestion of increasing NI, but abolishing it completely as a separate tax. It’s all combined within the previously mentioned two income tax rates. VAT? – Other than a reduction in VAT, I’m not yet aware of any rates being proposed. Trading with Europe – There will be no import or export duty on trade with Europe. No CAP Levies within Europe either. UKIP openly and repeatedly states that they want to revert back to the original concept of [bold] Free Trade within Europe [/bold] with Europe, as a [bold] Common Market [/bold] . Nothing more, nothing less. Simples. There will be no additional taxes on your exports from Bucks to Europe. Yes, we can take head on the NHS Expensive Quangos and greatly reduce wasteful bureaucracy. UKIP are aiming to make this country fair for everyone. Now maybe you’d like to vote for UKIP? Average Bloke
  • Score: 4

8:11pm Thu 15 May 14

demoness the second says...

Average Bloke wrote:
Thanks mistamina.
I believe that UKIP is, by far, a party that listens to the people of this country, and have no intention of becoming elected dictators. They are also not perfect, but easily way better than what we have now. The current rabble are out of touch, and just don’t get it.

I made a cost typo, sorry – I’m not perfect either.

The UKIP proposed tax system would kick-in at a possible £13,000 level (not my typo of £13,00). Pay zero tax below that level. 31% flat rate above that, up to a possible £40,000, and then 40% on everything earned above that. Both of these rates include what is now called National Insurance Contributions (NI), so no, there is no suggestion of increasing NI, but abolishing it completely as a separate tax. It’s all combined within the previously mentioned two income tax rates.

VAT? – Other than a reduction in VAT, I’m not yet aware of any rates being proposed.

Trading with Europe – There will be no import or export duty on trade with Europe. No CAP Levies within Europe either. UKIP openly and repeatedly states that they want to revert back to the original concept of Free Trade within Europe with Europe, as a Common Market . Nothing more, nothing less. Simples.

There will be no additional taxes on your exports from Bucks to Europe.

Yes, we can take head on the NHS Expensive Quangos and greatly reduce wasteful bureaucracy.

UKIP are aiming to make this country fair for everyone.

Now maybe you’d like to vote for UKIP?
You absolutely have no idea what you are talking about!
[quote][p][bold]Average Bloke[/bold] wrote: [bold] Thanks mistamina. [/bold] I believe that UKIP is, by far, a party that listens to the people of this country, and have no intention of becoming elected dictators. They are also not perfect, but easily way better than what we have now. The current rabble are out of touch, and just don’t get it. I made a cost typo, sorry – I’m not perfect either. The UKIP proposed tax system would kick-in at a possible £13,000 level (not my typo of £13,00). Pay zero tax below that level. 31% flat rate above that, up to a possible £40,000, and then 40% on everything earned above that. Both of these rates include what is now called National Insurance Contributions (NI), so no, there is no suggestion of increasing NI, but abolishing it completely as a separate tax. It’s all combined within the previously mentioned two income tax rates. VAT? – Other than a reduction in VAT, I’m not yet aware of any rates being proposed. Trading with Europe – There will be no import or export duty on trade with Europe. No CAP Levies within Europe either. UKIP openly and repeatedly states that they want to revert back to the original concept of [bold] Free Trade within Europe [/bold] with Europe, as a [bold] Common Market [/bold] . Nothing more, nothing less. Simples. There will be no additional taxes on your exports from Bucks to Europe. Yes, we can take head on the NHS Expensive Quangos and greatly reduce wasteful bureaucracy. UKIP are aiming to make this country fair for everyone. Now maybe you’d like to vote for UKIP?[/p][/quote]You absolutely have no idea what you are talking about! demoness the second
  • Score: -5

10:21pm Thu 15 May 14

jhkikhvkv says...

Well. at least now we know which side the Electoral commission is batting for.
Well. at least now we know which side the Electoral commission is batting for. jhkikhvkv
  • Score: -1

10:21pm Thu 15 May 14

Average Bloke says...

demoness the second wrote:
You absolutely have no idea what you are talking about!

I may not have everything exact, but as a card carrying member of UKIP, with a fair attendance record, I'm in the right ball park on most of UKIP's intentions and aspirations. Please bear in mind, that the majority of UKIP's members are not politicians. We're ordinary people who have become disillusioned with the main stream parties, who are out of touch, and don't really represent the British public anymore.
UKIP wants to change that. UKIP wants to make life better for everyone, including you Demoness.
There is still much work to be done, and not everything is in place yet, but at least UKIP has now put there money where their mouth is and are putting in the effort to correct the wrongs of the established parties.
We're only human, but we're trying... Trying hard...
[quote] [bold] demoness the second [/bold] wrote: You absolutely have no idea what you are talking about! [/quote] I may not have everything exact, but as a card carrying member of UKIP, with a fair attendance record, I'm in the right ball park on most of UKIP's intentions and aspirations. Please bear in mind, that the majority of UKIP's members are not politicians. We're ordinary people who have become disillusioned with the main stream parties, who are out of touch, and don't really represent the British public anymore. UKIP wants to change that. UKIP wants to make life better for everyone, including you Demoness. There is still much work to be done, and not everything is in place yet, but at least UKIP has now put there money where their mouth is and are putting in the effort to correct the wrongs of the established parties. We're only human, but we're trying... Trying hard... Average Bloke
  • Score: 9

6:22am Fri 16 May 14

demoness the second says...

Average Bloke wrote:
demoness the second wrote:
You absolutely have no idea what you are talking about!

I may not have everything exact, but as a card carrying member of UKIP, with a fair attendance record, I'm in the right ball park on most of UKIP's intentions and aspirations. Please bear in mind, that the majority of UKIP's members are not politicians. We're ordinary people who have become disillusioned with the main stream parties, who are out of touch, and don't really represent the British public anymore.
UKIP wants to change that. UKIP wants to make life better for everyone, including you Demoness.
There is still much work to be done, and not everything is in place yet, but at least UKIP has now put there money where their mouth is and are putting in the effort to correct the wrongs of the established parties.
We're only human, but we're trying... Trying hard...
And that makes it even worse. The road to hell is full of good intentions.
I think it would be a very sad and sorry day if that Farage person ever ruled our country.
I am the British public - so are countless of my friends and family. None of us want our views represented by UKIP.
[quote][p][bold]Average Bloke[/bold] wrote: [quote] [bold] demoness the second [/bold] wrote: You absolutely have no idea what you are talking about! [/quote] I may not have everything exact, but as a card carrying member of UKIP, with a fair attendance record, I'm in the right ball park on most of UKIP's intentions and aspirations. Please bear in mind, that the majority of UKIP's members are not politicians. We're ordinary people who have become disillusioned with the main stream parties, who are out of touch, and don't really represent the British public anymore. UKIP wants to change that. UKIP wants to make life better for everyone, including you Demoness. There is still much work to be done, and not everything is in place yet, but at least UKIP has now put there money where their mouth is and are putting in the effort to correct the wrongs of the established parties. We're only human, but we're trying... Trying hard...[/p][/quote]And that makes it even worse. The road to hell is full of good intentions. I think it would be a very sad and sorry day if that Farage person ever ruled our country. I am the British public - so are countless of my friends and family. None of us want our views represented by UKIP. demoness the second
  • Score: -5

6:56am Fri 16 May 14

Average Bloke says...

demoness the second wrote:
Average Bloke wrote:
demoness the second wrote:
You absolutely have no idea what you are talking about!

I may not have everything exact, but as a card carrying member of UKIP, with a fair attendance record, I'm in the right ball park on most of UKIP's intentions and aspirations. Please bear in mind, that the majority of UKIP's members are not politicians. We're ordinary people who have become disillusioned with the main stream parties, who are out of touch, and don't really represent the British public anymore.
UKIP wants to change that. UKIP wants to make life better for everyone, including you Demoness.
There is still much work to be done, and not everything is in place yet, but at least UKIP has now put there money where their mouth is and are putting in the effort to correct the wrongs of the established parties.
We're only human, but we're trying... Trying hard...
And that makes it even worse. The road to hell is full of good intentions.
I think it would be a very sad and sorry day if that Farage person ever ruled our country.
I am the British public - so are countless of my friends and family. None of us want our views represented by UKIP.
Every political party started somewhere.
If trying to to make things better for everyone doesn't do it for you, then that's ok. But if everyone keeps voting for the same, you'll keep getting the same.
I want to change the current, inefficient and often corrupt system.. So I'm doing as much as I can to make it happen. If this isn't successful then at least someone tried.
[quote][p][bold]demoness the second[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Average Bloke[/bold] wrote: [quote] [bold] demoness the second [/bold] wrote: You absolutely have no idea what you are talking about! [/quote] I may not have everything exact, but as a card carrying member of UKIP, with a fair attendance record, I'm in the right ball park on most of UKIP's intentions and aspirations. Please bear in mind, that the majority of UKIP's members are not politicians. We're ordinary people who have become disillusioned with the main stream parties, who are out of touch, and don't really represent the British public anymore. UKIP wants to change that. UKIP wants to make life better for everyone, including you Demoness. There is still much work to be done, and not everything is in place yet, but at least UKIP has now put there money where their mouth is and are putting in the effort to correct the wrongs of the established parties. We're only human, but we're trying... Trying hard...[/p][/quote]And that makes it even worse. The road to hell is full of good intentions. I think it would be a very sad and sorry day if that Farage person ever ruled our country. I am the British public - so are countless of my friends and family. None of us want our views represented by UKIP.[/p][/quote]Every political party started somewhere. If trying to to make things better for everyone doesn't do it for you, then that's ok. But if everyone keeps voting for the same, you'll keep getting the same. I want to change the current, inefficient and often corrupt system.. So I'm doing as much as I can to make it happen. If this isn't successful then at least someone tried. Average Bloke
  • Score: 6

7:18am Fri 16 May 14

demoness the second says...

I do not like your politics. They are far too right wing for me so I will not, under any circumstances be voting for UKIP.
It is a reactionary party set up to prey on the fears of the Daily Mail and Sun readers.
However, hopefully people will see sense and not vote for them.
I will be voting Green - they are trying to make a difference as well and their politics are much more people orientated and caring for the planet than UKIP will ever be.
I do not like your politics. They are far too right wing for me so I will not, under any circumstances be voting for UKIP. It is a reactionary party set up to prey on the fears of the Daily Mail and Sun readers. However, hopefully people will see sense and not vote for them. I will be voting Green - they are trying to make a difference as well and their politics are much more people orientated and caring for the planet than UKIP will ever be. demoness the second
  • Score: -3

7:34am Fri 16 May 14

Average Bloke says...

Most of us don't associate ourselves with left wing or right wing labels. We're just ordinary people who dislike the current problems so we discuss what needs to be done to make things better for all. We're so much more than just Nigel.
I'm glad that you're also not voting for one of the incumbent 3 parties.
I wish you luck (genuinely)
Most of us don't associate ourselves with left wing or right wing labels. We're just ordinary people who dislike the current problems so we discuss what needs to be done to make things better for all. We're so much more than just Nigel. I'm glad that you're also not voting for one of the incumbent 3 parties. I wish you luck (genuinely) Average Bloke
  • Score: 6

11:05am Fri 16 May 14

catrose says...

I received a leaflet from the An Independence ' party and didn't for one moment think its was for Ukip, the clue being that the term Ukip wasn't on the leaflet. What an idiot.
I received a leaflet from the An Independence ' party and didn't for one moment think its was for Ukip, the clue being that the term Ukip wasn't on the leaflet. What an idiot. catrose
  • Score: 2

12:22pm Fri 16 May 14

mistamina says...

Average Bloke wrote:
Most of us don't associate ourselves with left wing or right wing labels. We're just ordinary people who dislike the current problems so we discuss what needs to be done to make things better for all. We're so much more than just Nigel.
I'm glad that you're also not voting for one of the incumbent 3 parties.
I wish you luck (genuinely)
Sorry Bloke and this will come as a surprise. You are right wing. Very right wing, I will accepted the whole party is in denial. You are full of outright bigots or closet bigots. your policies, taxes, structure is weak, selection is non-existent. Not your fault, you entire rely on being populist. This brings dangers for you. As for your Leader - need an awful amount of work, maybe worth ditching him ASAP!
BUT UKIIP is very popular in Bucks, that much must be acknowledged. 28% of all votes was it? But then we Bucks is very behind the times (not you, Green Demoness).
But then hey, so was Margaret............
........or was she!
[quote][p][bold]Average Bloke[/bold] wrote: Most of us don't associate ourselves with left wing or right wing labels. We're just ordinary people who dislike the current problems so we discuss what needs to be done to make things better for all. We're so much more than just Nigel. I'm glad that you're also not voting for one of the incumbent 3 parties. I wish you luck (genuinely)[/p][/quote]Sorry Bloke and this will come as a surprise. You are right wing. Very right wing, I will accepted the whole party is in denial. You are full of outright bigots or closet bigots. your policies, taxes, structure is weak, selection is non-existent. Not your fault, you entire rely on being populist. This brings dangers for you. As for your Leader - need an awful amount of work, maybe worth ditching him ASAP! BUT UKIIP is very popular in Bucks, that much must be acknowledged. 28% of all votes was it? But then we Bucks is very behind the times (not you, Green Demoness). But then hey, so was Margaret............ ........or was she! mistamina
  • Score: 0

6:55pm Fri 16 May 14

tom.marlow2 says...

http://www.huffingto
npost.co.uk/2014/05/
16/nigel-farage-ukip
-lbc-interview-video
_n_5336322.html?1400
238903--&utm_hp_ref=
fb&src=sp&comm_ref=f
alse

Its quite long but entertaining
http://www.huffingto npost.co.uk/2014/05/ 16/nigel-farage-ukip -lbc-interview-video _n_5336322.html?1400 238903--&utm_hp_ref= fb&src=sp&comm_ref=f alse Its quite long but entertaining tom.marlow2
  • Score: 0

8:01pm Fri 16 May 14

Average Bloke says...

Looks like Dave and his Conservative old boys club are about to do a massive and permanent, irreversible, USA hatchet job on the NHS.

http://www.independe
nt.co.uk/life-style/
health-and-families/
health-news/nhs-coul
d-be-carved-open-by-
us-healthcare-profit
eers-warns-shadow-he
alth-secretary-andy-
burnham-9292530.html
Looks like Dave and his Conservative old boys club are about to do a massive and permanent, irreversible, USA hatchet job on the NHS. http://www.independe nt.co.uk/life-style/ health-and-families/ health-news/nhs-coul d-be-carved-open-by- us-healthcare-profit eers-warns-shadow-he alth-secretary-andy- burnham-9292530.html Average Bloke
  • Score: 4

10:51pm Fri 16 May 14

demoness the second says...

Average Bloke wrote:
Looks like Dave and his Conservative old boys club are about to do a massive and permanent, irreversible, USA hatchet job on the NHS.

http://www.independe

nt.co.uk/life-style/

health-and-families/

health-news/nhs-coul

d-be-carved-open-by-

us-healthcare-profit

eers-warns-shadow-he

alth-secretary-andy-

burnham-9292530.html
And if you think for one minute that UKIP are different, then I am really sorry but you are 100% deluded.

Sorry AB cos I know you are a decent bloke but UKIP want the NHS gone.
[quote][p][bold]Average Bloke[/bold] wrote: Looks like Dave and his Conservative old boys club are about to do a massive and permanent, irreversible, USA hatchet job on the NHS. http://www.independe nt.co.uk/life-style/ health-and-families/ health-news/nhs-coul d-be-carved-open-by- us-healthcare-profit eers-warns-shadow-he alth-secretary-andy- burnham-9292530.html[/p][/quote]And if you think for one minute that UKIP are different, then I am really sorry but you are 100% deluded. Sorry AB cos I know you are a decent bloke but UKIP want the NHS gone. demoness the second
  • Score: 1

9:42am Sat 17 May 14

mistamina says...

tom.marlow2 wrote:
http://www.huffingto

npost.co.uk/2014/05/

16/nigel-farage-ukip

-lbc-interview-video

_n_5336322.html?1400

238903--&utm_hp_
ref=
fb&src=sp&co
mm_ref=f
alse

Its quite long but entertaining
Thank you, Tom.marlow2,
Even if I discount 50% of allegations for being overly active attacking by LBC presenter James O'Brien, our 'Nige' appears to have a whole lot of problems,. both with his membership and himself.
[quote][p][bold]tom.marlow2[/bold] wrote: http://www.huffingto npost.co.uk/2014/05/ 16/nigel-farage-ukip -lbc-interview-video _n_5336322.html?1400 238903--&utm_hp_ ref= fb&src=sp&co mm_ref=f alse Its quite long but entertaining[/p][/quote]Thank you, Tom.marlow2, Even if I discount 50% of allegations for being overly active attacking by LBC presenter James O'Brien, our 'Nige' appears to have a whole lot of problems,. both with his membership and himself. mistamina
  • Score: 0

1:49pm Sat 17 May 14

Average Bloke says...

mistamina wrote:
tom.marlow2 wrote:
http://www.huffingto


npost.co.uk/2014/05/


16/nigel-farage-ukip


-lbc-interview-video


_n_5336322.html?1400


238903--&utm_hp_

ref=
fb&src=sp&co

mm_ref=f
alse

Its quite long but entertaining
Thank you, Tom.marlow2,
Even if I discount 50% of allegations for being overly active attacking by LBC presenter James O'Brien, our 'Nige' appears to have a whole lot of problems,. both with his membership and himself.
Presenter James O'Brien is part of the media onslaught of UKIP, who concentrate on the very tiny numbers of problem members within UKIP, but have decided not to scrutinise the other parties in the same manor. Only this week, a Conservative councillor appeared in court for taking pornographic photos of young children, and having vast amounts of paedophilia images on his PC. But have the media given this an equal amount of coverage? Of course not. This week, the Conservatives have taken a major step forward in the destruction of the NHS by signing legally irreversible deals with private USA Health companies, that will dismantle the NHS in ways that would destroy the basic principles upon which it was built. But does the media cover this in the same way they pull apart UKIP? Of course not!

Essentially, the 3 main parties and the media are on a mud slinging and lies campaign against UKIP. The vast majority of the accusations are false or lies.
UKIP would keep to the longstanding principles of the NHS, and will not destroy it
[quote][p][bold]mistamina[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tom.marlow2[/bold] wrote: http://www.huffingto npost.co.uk/2014/05/ 16/nigel-farage-ukip -lbc-interview-video _n_5336322.html?1400 238903--&utm_hp_ ref= fb&src=sp&co mm_ref=f alse Its quite long but entertaining[/p][/quote]Thank you, Tom.marlow2, Even if I discount 50% of allegations for being overly active attacking by LBC presenter James O'Brien, our 'Nige' appears to have a whole lot of problems,. both with his membership and himself.[/p][/quote]Presenter James O'Brien is part of the media onslaught of UKIP, who concentrate on the very tiny numbers of problem members within UKIP, but have decided not to scrutinise the other parties in the same manor. Only this week, a Conservative councillor appeared in court for taking pornographic photos of young children, and having vast amounts of paedophilia images on his PC. But have the media given this an equal amount of coverage? Of course not. This week, the Conservatives have taken a major step forward in the destruction of the NHS by signing legally irreversible deals with private USA Health companies, that will dismantle the NHS in ways that would destroy the basic principles upon which it was built. But does the media cover this in the same way they pull apart UKIP? Of course not! Essentially, the 3 main parties and the media are on a mud slinging and lies campaign against UKIP. The vast majority of the accusations are false or lies. [bold] UKIP would keep to the longstanding principles of the NHS, and will not destroy it [/bold] Average Bloke
  • Score: 4

2:41pm Sat 17 May 14

tom.marlow2 says...

Average Bloke wrote:
mistamina wrote:
tom.marlow2 wrote:
http://www.huffingto



npost.co.uk/2014/05/



16/nigel-farage-ukip



-lbc-interview-video



_n_5336322.html?1400



238903--&utm_hp_


ref=
fb&src=sp&co


mm_ref=f
alse

Its quite long but entertaining
Thank you, Tom.marlow2,
Even if I discount 50% of allegations for being overly active attacking by LBC presenter James O'Brien, our 'Nige' appears to have a whole lot of problems,. both with his membership and himself.
Presenter James O'Brien is part of the media onslaught of UKIP, who concentrate on the very tiny numbers of problem members within UKIP, but have decided not to scrutinise the other parties in the same manor. Only this week, a Conservative councillor appeared in court for taking pornographic photos of young children, and having vast amounts of paedophilia images on his PC. But have the media given this an equal amount of coverage? Of course not. This week, the Conservatives have taken a major step forward in the destruction of the NHS by signing legally irreversible deals with private USA Health companies, that will dismantle the NHS in ways that would destroy the basic principles upon which it was built. But does the media cover this in the same way they pull apart UKIP? Of course not!

Essentially, the 3 main parties and the media are on a mud slinging and lies campaign against UKIP. The vast majority of the accusations are false or lies.
UKIP would keep to the longstanding principles of the NHS, and will not destroy it
These are elections for the European parliament. Not one of the MEPs that you may or may not get elected will have any influence over the future of the NHS so stop trying to deflect attention on to irrelevant issues.

Most of James O'Brien's questioning of Nigel Farage was about the inconsistency and hypocrisy of Farage's statements about foreign language speakers and about the UKIP MEP's refusal to submit to the same audit of their expense and allowance usage as Labour MEPs

UKIP have a reputation for being the amongst poorest in attendance and participation in the parliament they have been elected to, and for claiming every last penny in expenses and allowances. People are entitled to be made aware of the contempt with which they treat their constituents. Unless they are prepared to address their own shortcomings they have no moral right to criticise those of the other parties.
[quote][p][bold]Average Bloke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mistamina[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tom.marlow2[/bold] wrote: http://www.huffingto npost.co.uk/2014/05/ 16/nigel-farage-ukip -lbc-interview-video _n_5336322.html?1400 238903--&utm_hp_ ref= fb&src=sp&co mm_ref=f alse Its quite long but entertaining[/p][/quote]Thank you, Tom.marlow2, Even if I discount 50% of allegations for being overly active attacking by LBC presenter James O'Brien, our 'Nige' appears to have a whole lot of problems,. both with his membership and himself.[/p][/quote]Presenter James O'Brien is part of the media onslaught of UKIP, who concentrate on the very tiny numbers of problem members within UKIP, but have decided not to scrutinise the other parties in the same manor. Only this week, a Conservative councillor appeared in court for taking pornographic photos of young children, and having vast amounts of paedophilia images on his PC. But have the media given this an equal amount of coverage? Of course not. This week, the Conservatives have taken a major step forward in the destruction of the NHS by signing legally irreversible deals with private USA Health companies, that will dismantle the NHS in ways that would destroy the basic principles upon which it was built. But does the media cover this in the same way they pull apart UKIP? Of course not! Essentially, the 3 main parties and the media are on a mud slinging and lies campaign against UKIP. The vast majority of the accusations are false or lies. [bold] UKIP would keep to the longstanding principles of the NHS, and will not destroy it [/bold][/p][/quote]These are elections for the European parliament. Not one of the MEPs that you may or may not get elected will have any influence over the future of the NHS so stop trying to deflect attention on to irrelevant issues. Most of James O'Brien's questioning of Nigel Farage was about the inconsistency and hypocrisy of Farage's statements about foreign language speakers and about the UKIP MEP's refusal to submit to the same audit of their expense and allowance usage as Labour MEPs UKIP have a reputation for being the amongst poorest in attendance and participation in the parliament they have been elected to, and for claiming every last penny in expenses and allowances. People are entitled to be made aware of the contempt with which they treat their constituents. Unless they are prepared to address their own shortcomings they have no moral right to criticise those of the other parties. tom.marlow2
  • Score: 1

3:31pm Sat 17 May 14

Average Bloke says...

tom.marlow2 wrote:
These are elections for the European parliament. Not one of the MEPs that you may or may not get elected will have any influence over the future of the NHS so stop trying to deflect attention on to irrelevant issues.

Most of James O'Brien's questioning of Nigel Farage was about the inconsistency and hypocrisy of Farage's statements about foreign language speakers and about the UKIP MEP's refusal to submit to the same audit of their expense and allowance usage as Labour MEPs

UKIP have a reputation for being the amongst poorest in attendance and participation in the parliament they have been elected to, and for claiming every last penny in expenses and allowances. People are entitled to be made aware of the contempt with which they treat their constituents. Unless they are prepared to address their own shortcomings they have no moral right to criticise those of the other parties.
Tom, you are correct, these ARE the elections for the European parliament, although in some parts of the UK, there are also joint local elections. However, my comments about the NHS were in a continuation of the topic, as started by AgentMorty on Thursday. The deflection/mud slinging was started by him.

Again, I agree with you, these ARE the elections for the European Parliament, yet very little on that topic has been discussed by anyone here. Is that because they are trying to discredit UKIP in any way possible? And mostly with lies or factual inaccuracies? Maybe we should be discussing European issues and the effects of non-elected EU bureaucrats deciding on what the UK can or can’t do?

You state that ‘UKIP have a reputation for being the amongst poorest in attendance and participation… Maybe you haven’t understood the concept of the people who want the UK to get out of the political EU union that no one voted for, (there was only a vote on an 'Economic Union' for Free Trade within Europe ) and have no other way to express that opinion in the ballot box, other than to vote UKIP. As we all know, Cameron has a well-documented history of offering a referendum on Europe, and then reneging on it. He hasn’t changed, so why should voters believe him now?

In regards to addressing the shortcomings of a very small minority of UKIP members, it’s interesting to note the vast numbers of Conservatives, Labour and LibDems who have fiddled expenses and got away scott-free with it, greater numbers of the other parties have been convicted of an array of criminal offenses of varying types, yet there’s no witch-hunt going on for any of them at this moment.

The only witch-hunt going on at the moment is the anti-UKIP one.
[quote][bold] tom.marlow2 [/bold] wrote: These are elections for the European parliament. Not one of the MEPs that you may or may not get elected will have any influence over the future of the NHS so stop trying to deflect attention on to irrelevant issues. Most of James O'Brien's questioning of Nigel Farage was about the inconsistency and hypocrisy of Farage's statements about foreign language speakers and about the UKIP MEP's refusal to submit to the same audit of their expense and allowance usage as Labour MEPs UKIP have a reputation for being the amongst poorest in attendance and participation in the parliament they have been elected to, and for claiming every last penny in expenses and allowances. People are entitled to be made aware of the contempt with which they treat their constituents. Unless they are prepared to address their own shortcomings they have no moral right to criticise those of the other parties. [/quote] Tom, you are correct, these ARE the elections for the European parliament, although in some parts of the UK, there are also joint local elections. However, my comments about the NHS were in a continuation of the topic, as started by [bold] AgentMorty [/bold] on Thursday. The deflection/mud slinging was started by him. Again, I agree with you, these ARE the elections for the European Parliament, yet very little on that topic has been discussed by anyone here. Is that because they are trying to discredit UKIP in any way possible? And mostly with lies or factual inaccuracies? Maybe we should be discussing European issues and the effects of non-elected EU bureaucrats deciding on what the UK can or can’t do? You state that [italic] ‘UKIP have a reputation for being the amongst poorest in attendance and participation… [/italic] Maybe you haven’t understood the concept of the people who want the UK to get out of the political EU union that no one voted for, (there was only a vote on an 'Economic Union' for Free Trade within Europe ) and have no other way to express that opinion in the ballot box, other than to vote UKIP. As we all know, Cameron has a well-documented history of offering a referendum on Europe, and then reneging on it. He hasn’t changed, so why should voters believe him now? In regards to addressing the shortcomings of a very small minority of UKIP members, it’s interesting to note the vast numbers of Conservatives, Labour and LibDems who have fiddled expenses and got away scott-free with it, greater numbers of the other parties have been convicted of an array of criminal offenses of varying types, yet there’s no witch-hunt going on for any of them at this moment. The only witch-hunt going on at the moment is the anti-UKIP one. Average Bloke
  • Score: 4

4:00pm Sat 17 May 14

mistamina says...

Average Bloke wrote:
mistamina wrote:
tom.marlow2 wrote:
http://www.huffingto



npost.co.uk/2014/05/



16/nigel-farage-ukip



-lbc-interview-video



_n_5336322.html?1400



238903--&utm_hp_


ref=
fb&src=sp&co


mm_ref=f
alse

Its quite long but entertaining
Thank you, Tom.marlow2,
Even if I discount 50% of allegations for being overly active attacking by LBC presenter James O'Brien, our 'Nige' appears to have a whole lot of problems,. both with his membership and himself.
Presenter James O'Brien is part of the media onslaught of UKIP, who concentrate on the very tiny numbers of problem members within UKIP, but have decided not to scrutinise the other parties in the same manor. Only this week, a Conservative councillor appeared in court for taking pornographic photos of young children, and having vast amounts of paedophilia images on his PC. But have the media given this an equal amount of coverage? Of course not. This week, the Conservatives have taken a major step forward in the destruction of the NHS by signing legally irreversible deals with private USA Health companies, that will dismantle the NHS in ways that would destroy the basic principles upon which it was built. But does the media cover this in the same way they pull apart UKIP? Of course not!

Essentially, the 3 main parties and the media are on a mud slinging and lies campaign against UKIP. The vast majority of the accusations are false or lies.
UKIP would keep to the longstanding principles of the NHS, and will not destroy it
Bloke. The media has been overly generous with its exposure to our cuddly imaged 'Nige'. Week in, week out, he gets in the mornings TV, Question Time, Newsnight, Have i Got Blues for You, you name it, he is there. Then there is BBC radio. So you know - pretty fair coverage.
I bet Cameroon, Ed and Cleggy wish they had even half the coverage, negative and positive.
And mud slinging is part of English politics, we are a tough conflict-based political system.

Having said all this. I will be furious, incandescent with rage if there is no foundation in current round of allegations of sexism, racism, tax this, business that, expenses fiddling, whatever else comes.
I will not be angry for me. I will be angry for you - you and some Bucks men I know have invested a HUGE amount of faith in Nige, you have supported him, fought for him and ultimately put your own personal judgement and reputations in line for him.

For your sake he had better come through; the European Election is now a side issue. Person Integrity has taken over.
[quote][p][bold]Average Bloke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mistamina[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tom.marlow2[/bold] wrote: http://www.huffingto npost.co.uk/2014/05/ 16/nigel-farage-ukip -lbc-interview-video _n_5336322.html?1400 238903--&utm_hp_ ref= fb&src=sp&co mm_ref=f alse Its quite long but entertaining[/p][/quote]Thank you, Tom.marlow2, Even if I discount 50% of allegations for being overly active attacking by LBC presenter James O'Brien, our 'Nige' appears to have a whole lot of problems,. both with his membership and himself.[/p][/quote]Presenter James O'Brien is part of the media onslaught of UKIP, who concentrate on the very tiny numbers of problem members within UKIP, but have decided not to scrutinise the other parties in the same manor. Only this week, a Conservative councillor appeared in court for taking pornographic photos of young children, and having vast amounts of paedophilia images on his PC. But have the media given this an equal amount of coverage? Of course not. This week, the Conservatives have taken a major step forward in the destruction of the NHS by signing legally irreversible deals with private USA Health companies, that will dismantle the NHS in ways that would destroy the basic principles upon which it was built. But does the media cover this in the same way they pull apart UKIP? Of course not! Essentially, the 3 main parties and the media are on a mud slinging and lies campaign against UKIP. The vast majority of the accusations are false or lies. [bold] UKIP would keep to the longstanding principles of the NHS, and will not destroy it [/bold][/p][/quote]Bloke. The media has been overly generous with its exposure to our cuddly imaged 'Nige'. Week in, week out, he gets in the mornings TV, Question Time, Newsnight, Have i Got Blues for You, you name it, he is there. Then there is BBC radio. So you know - pretty fair coverage. I bet Cameroon, Ed and Cleggy wish they had even half the coverage, negative and positive. And mud slinging is part of English politics, we are a tough conflict-based political system. Having said all this. I will be furious, incandescent with rage if there is no foundation in current round of allegations of sexism, racism, tax this, business that, expenses fiddling, whatever else comes. I will not be angry for me. I will be angry for you - you and some Bucks men I know have invested a HUGE amount of faith in Nige, you have supported him, fought for him and ultimately put your own personal judgement and reputations in line for him. For your sake he had better come through; the European Election is now a side issue. Person Integrity has taken over. mistamina
  • Score: 0

4:13pm Sat 17 May 14

tom.marlow2 says...

Average Bloke wrote:
tom.marlow2 wrote:
These are elections for the European parliament. Not one of the MEPs that you may or may not get elected will have any influence over the future of the NHS so stop trying to deflect attention on to irrelevant issues.

Most of James O'Brien's questioning of Nigel Farage was about the inconsistency and hypocrisy of Farage's statements about foreign language speakers and about the UKIP MEP's refusal to submit to the same audit of their expense and allowance usage as Labour MEPs

UKIP have a reputation for being the amongst poorest in attendance and participation in the parliament they have been elected to, and for claiming every last penny in expenses and allowances. People are entitled to be made aware of the contempt with which they treat their constituents. Unless they are prepared to address their own shortcomings they have no moral right to criticise those of the other parties.
Tom, you are correct, these ARE the elections for the European parliament, although in some parts of the UK, there are also joint local elections. However, my comments about the NHS were in a continuation of the topic, as started by AgentMorty on Thursday. The deflection/mud slinging was started by him.

Again, I agree with you, these ARE the elections for the European Parliament, yet very little on that topic has been discussed by anyone here. Is that because they are trying to discredit UKIP in any way possible? And mostly with lies or factual inaccuracies? Maybe we should be discussing European issues and the effects of non-elected EU bureaucrats deciding on what the UK can or can’t do?

You state that ‘UKIP have a reputation for being the amongst poorest in attendance and participation… Maybe you haven’t understood the concept of the people who want the UK to get out of the political EU union that no one voted for, (there was only a vote on an 'Economic Union' for Free Trade within Europe ) and have no other way to express that opinion in the ballot box, other than to vote UKIP. As we all know, Cameron has a well-documented history of offering a referendum on Europe, and then reneging on it. He hasn’t changed, so why should voters believe him now?

In regards to addressing the shortcomings of a very small minority of UKIP members, it’s interesting to note the vast numbers of Conservatives, Labour and LibDems who have fiddled expenses and got away scott-free with it, greater numbers of the other parties have been convicted of an array of criminal offenses of varying types, yet there’s no witch-hunt going on for any of them at this moment.

The only witch-hunt going on at the moment is the anti-UKIP one.
You know just as well as I do that the legislative process at the European level is essentially the same as in the UK. Actual decisions are made by the parliament, not by unelected bureaucrats.

By declining to participate in the parliamentary process the UKIP MEPs are effectively disenfranchising their constituents, leaving their interests completely un-represented. At the same time, they have no problem with taking the allowances, eating the dinners, drinking the champagne. I find that disgraceful.

I also dislike pretty much everything Cameron's government is doing and to be fair, although I am a lifelong Labour voter I didn't think too much of Blair and Brown either. But the cynicism of UKIP and the lies and hypocrisy spread by its leadership make Blair look almost angelic.
[quote][p][bold]Average Bloke[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold] tom.marlow2 [/bold] wrote: These are elections for the European parliament. Not one of the MEPs that you may or may not get elected will have any influence over the future of the NHS so stop trying to deflect attention on to irrelevant issues. Most of James O'Brien's questioning of Nigel Farage was about the inconsistency and hypocrisy of Farage's statements about foreign language speakers and about the UKIP MEP's refusal to submit to the same audit of their expense and allowance usage as Labour MEPs UKIP have a reputation for being the amongst poorest in attendance and participation in the parliament they have been elected to, and for claiming every last penny in expenses and allowances. People are entitled to be made aware of the contempt with which they treat their constituents. Unless they are prepared to address their own shortcomings they have no moral right to criticise those of the other parties. [/quote] Tom, you are correct, these ARE the elections for the European parliament, although in some parts of the UK, there are also joint local elections. However, my comments about the NHS were in a continuation of the topic, as started by [bold] AgentMorty [/bold] on Thursday. The deflection/mud slinging was started by him. Again, I agree with you, these ARE the elections for the European Parliament, yet very little on that topic has been discussed by anyone here. Is that because they are trying to discredit UKIP in any way possible? And mostly with lies or factual inaccuracies? Maybe we should be discussing European issues and the effects of non-elected EU bureaucrats deciding on what the UK can or can’t do? You state that [italic] ‘UKIP have a reputation for being the amongst poorest in attendance and participation… [/italic] Maybe you haven’t understood the concept of the people who want the UK to get out of the political EU union that no one voted for, (there was only a vote on an 'Economic Union' for Free Trade within Europe ) and have no other way to express that opinion in the ballot box, other than to vote UKIP. As we all know, Cameron has a well-documented history of offering a referendum on Europe, and then reneging on it. He hasn’t changed, so why should voters believe him now? In regards to addressing the shortcomings of a very small minority of UKIP members, it’s interesting to note the vast numbers of Conservatives, Labour and LibDems who have fiddled expenses and got away scott-free with it, greater numbers of the other parties have been convicted of an array of criminal offenses of varying types, yet there’s no witch-hunt going on for any of them at this moment. The only witch-hunt going on at the moment is the anti-UKIP one.[/p][/quote]You know just as well as I do that the legislative process at the European level is essentially the same as in the UK. Actual decisions are made by the parliament, not by unelected bureaucrats. By declining to participate in the parliamentary process the UKIP MEPs are effectively disenfranchising their constituents, leaving their interests completely un-represented. At the same time, they have no problem with taking the allowances, eating the dinners, drinking the champagne. I find that disgraceful. I also dislike pretty much everything Cameron's government is doing and to be fair, although I am a lifelong Labour voter I didn't think too much of Blair and Brown either. But the cynicism of UKIP and the lies and hypocrisy spread by its leadership make Blair look almost angelic. tom.marlow2
  • Score: 0

4:33pm Sat 17 May 14

Average Bloke says...

mistamina wrote:
Bloke. The media has been overly generous with its exposure to our cuddly imaged 'Nige'. Week in, week out, he gets in the mornings TV, Question Time, Newsnight, Have i Got Blues for You, you name it, he is there. Then there is BBC radio. So you know - pretty fair coverage.
I bet Cameroon, Ed and Cleggy wish they had even half the coverage, negative and positive.
And mud slinging is part of English politics, we are a tough conflict-based political system.

Having said all this. I will be furious, incandescent with rage if there is no foundation in current round of allegations of sexism, racism, tax this, business that, expenses fiddling, whatever else comes.
I will not be angry for me. I will be angry for you - you and some Bucks men I know have invested a HUGE amount of faith in Nige, you have supported him, fought for him and ultimately put your own personal judgement and reputations in line for him.

For your sake he had better come through; the European Election is now a side issue. Person Integrity has taken over.
mistamina, yes, ‘cuddly Nige’ has had a great deal of media exposure, and I wouldn’t disagree with that. But a large percentage of that exposure has been negative or hostile, and mainly off-topic, with a preference to dig-up lies and myths. Sure, some of it is accurate, especially when certain undesirables for ‘any party’ have managed to get in, and wreak havoc, and then this is incorrectly presented as being representative of the views of the entire membership. For example, the Conservative Councillor that was in court this week for a significant number of paedophilia related offences; does this mean that ‘ALL’ Conservative members are paedophiles? Of course it doesn’t. But that’s what’s happening to the UKIP party, and its members. It’s neither accurate, nor fair, the way the media coverage is constantly attacking UKIP.

With regard to your comment about being furious if there is no foundation for all the negative coverage; some of the individual miscreants have indeed made stupid or offensive comments, either in the distant past or more recently. But when discovered, UKIP has taken swift appropriate action against them where needed. Unlike the Conservatives who allowed so many guilty politicians to get away with fiddling en-mass, like the recent MP: £90k expenses fiddled, but only had to repay £5k and was allowed to continue in her position, fully supported by the PM himself. Labour & LibDems have many that fall into this category too.

Neither ‘Cuddly Nige’ or the UKIP party is perfect. But they offer a far better future for the people of this country than any of the alternatives.
[quote][bold] mistamina [/bold] wrote: Bloke. The media has been overly generous with its exposure to our cuddly imaged 'Nige'. Week in, week out, he gets in the mornings TV, Question Time, Newsnight, Have i Got Blues for You, you name it, he is there. Then there is BBC radio. So you know - pretty fair coverage. I bet Cameroon, Ed and Cleggy wish they had even half the coverage, negative and positive. And mud slinging is part of English politics, we are a tough conflict-based political system. Having said all this. I will be furious, incandescent with rage if there is no foundation in current round of allegations of sexism, racism, tax this, business that, expenses fiddling, whatever else comes. I will not be angry for me. I will be angry for you - you and some Bucks men I know have invested a HUGE amount of faith in Nige, you have supported him, fought for him and ultimately put your own personal judgement and reputations in line for him. For your sake he had better come through; the European Election is now a side issue. Person Integrity has taken over. [/quote] mistamina, yes, ‘cuddly Nige’ has had a great deal of media exposure, and I wouldn’t disagree with that. But a large percentage of that exposure has been negative or hostile, and mainly off-topic, with a preference to dig-up lies and myths. Sure, some of it is accurate, especially when certain undesirables for ‘any party’ have managed to get in, and wreak havoc, and then this is incorrectly presented as being representative of the views of the entire membership. For example, the Conservative Councillor that was in court this week for a significant number of paedophilia related offences; does this mean that ‘ALL’ Conservative members are paedophiles? Of course it doesn’t. But that’s what’s happening to the UKIP party, and its members. It’s neither accurate, nor fair, the way the media coverage is constantly attacking UKIP. With regard to your comment about being furious if there is no foundation for all the negative coverage; some of the individual miscreants have indeed made stupid or offensive comments, either in the distant past or more recently. But when discovered, UKIP has taken swift appropriate action against them where needed. Unlike the Conservatives who allowed so many guilty politicians to get away with fiddling en-mass, like the recent MP: £90k expenses fiddled, but only had to repay £5k and was allowed to continue in her position, fully supported by the PM himself. Labour & LibDems have many that fall into this category too. Neither ‘Cuddly Nige’ or the UKIP party is perfect. But they offer a far better future for the people of this country than any of the alternatives. Average Bloke
  • Score: 1

4:47pm Sat 17 May 14

Average Bloke says...

tom.marlow2 wrote:
You know just as well as I do that the legislative process at the European level is essentially the same as in the UK. Actual decisions are made by the parliament, not by unelected bureaucrats.

By declining to participate in the parliamentary process the UKIP MEPs are effectively disenfranchising their constituents, leaving their interests completely un-represented. At the same time, they have no problem with taking the allowances, eating the dinners, drinking the champagne. I find that disgraceful.

I also dislike pretty much everything Cameron's government is doing and to be fair, although I am a lifelong Labour voter I didn't think too much of Blair and Brown either. But the cynicism of UKIP and the lies and hypocrisy spread by its leadership make Blair look almost angelic.
I disagree that that the legislative process at the European level is essentially the same as in the UK. It isn’t.
Policy is made by the unelected bureaucrats within the EU 'Commission', and then voted on by the MEP’s with a very simple and very fast 'Yes or No'. There is no debate by the MEP’s on the vast majority of decisions being made in this process.

By mainly declining to participate in this process, the UKIP MEP’s are effectively representing the views of those who voted them in – Those who are against the system that it has become.

I’m partly with you on the allowances, but any job has to have some means of pay and travel allowances where needed. But this is another area for reform

I’m not a supporter of any politician that takes us into an illegal war, that costs British lives, and forever after, cost the taxpayer a fortune in additional security measures.

I’ also not a supporter of politicians who waste British assets – Gold sold cheap, Royal Mail sold cheap etc etc.
[quote][bold] tom.marlow2 [/bold] wrote: You know just as well as I do that the legislative process at the European level is essentially the same as in the UK. Actual decisions are made by the parliament, not by unelected bureaucrats. By declining to participate in the parliamentary process the UKIP MEPs are effectively disenfranchising their constituents, leaving their interests completely un-represented. At the same time, they have no problem with taking the allowances, eating the dinners, drinking the champagne. I find that disgraceful. I also dislike pretty much everything Cameron's government is doing and to be fair, although I am a lifelong Labour voter I didn't think too much of Blair and Brown either. But the cynicism of UKIP and the lies and hypocrisy spread by its leadership make Blair look almost angelic. [/quote] I disagree that that the legislative process at the European level is essentially the same as in the UK. [bold] It isn’t. [/bold] Policy is made by the unelected bureaucrats within the EU 'Commission', and then voted on by the MEP’s with a very simple and very fast 'Yes or No'. There is no debate by the MEP’s on the vast majority of decisions being made in this process. By mainly declining to participate in this process, the UKIP MEP’s are effectively representing the views of those who voted them in – Those who are against the system that it has become. I’m partly with you on the allowances, but any job has to have some means of pay and travel allowances where needed. But this is another area for reform I’m not a supporter of any politician that takes us into an illegal war, that costs British lives, and forever after, cost the taxpayer a fortune in additional security measures. I’ also not a supporter of politicians who waste British assets – Gold sold cheap, Royal Mail sold cheap etc etc. Average Bloke
  • Score: 2

5:12pm Sat 17 May 14

tom.marlow2 says...

Sounds very much like what happens here. Are you not aware of the vast army of bureaucrats in whitehall formulating policy which is voted on yes or no after minimal debate.

Why don't your MEPs vote no if you don't like the policies being voted on?
Sounds very much like what happens here. Are you not aware of the vast army of bureaucrats in whitehall formulating policy which is voted on yes or no after minimal debate. Why don't your MEPs vote no if you don't like the policies being voted on? tom.marlow2
  • Score: 1

5:42pm Sat 17 May 14

A VOTER says...

tom.marlow2 wrote:
Sounds very much like what happens here. Are you not aware of the vast army of bureaucrats in whitehall formulating policy which is voted on yes or no after minimal debate.

Why don't your MEPs vote no if you don't like the policies being voted on?
There is far more debate on policies in the UK parliament, than there ever is within Brussels - Have you seen live TV coverage of the 'yes/no' voting process? The average time taken is 30 seconds per policy, and they rattle through policies at a furious rate. Some may call this efficient policy making, but doing this without debate doesn't take into account the multitude of negative implications by voting one way or another... Highly undemocratic and unrepresentative.

UKIP MP's are expressing the voters view of disenchantment with the entire system, by not voting on 'most' policies. (They do vote on some)
[quote][p][bold]tom.marlow2[/bold] wrote: Sounds very much like what happens here. Are you not aware of the vast army of bureaucrats in whitehall formulating policy which is voted on yes or no after minimal debate. Why don't your MEPs vote no if you don't like the policies being voted on?[/p][/quote]There is far more debate on policies in the UK parliament, than there ever is within Brussels - Have you seen live TV coverage of the 'yes/no' voting process? The average time taken is 30 seconds per policy, and they rattle through policies at a furious rate. Some may call this efficient policy making, but doing this without debate doesn't take into account the multitude of negative implications by voting one way or another... Highly undemocratic and unrepresentative. UKIP MP's are expressing the voters view of disenchantment with the entire system, by not voting on 'most' policies. (They do vote on some) A VOTER
  • Score: 3

6:03pm Sat 17 May 14

Average Bloke says...

A VOTER wrote:
tom.marlow2 wrote:
Sounds very much like what happens here. Are you not aware of the vast army of bureaucrats in whitehall formulating policy which is voted on yes or no after minimal debate.

Why don't your MEPs vote no if you don't like the policies being voted on?
There is far more debate on policies in the UK parliament, than there ever is within Brussels - Have you seen live TV coverage of the 'yes/no' voting process? The average time taken is 30 seconds per policy, and they rattle through policies at a furious rate. Some may call this efficient policy making, but doing this without debate doesn't take into account the multitude of negative implications by voting one way or another... Highly undemocratic and unrepresentative.

UKIP MP's are expressing the voters view of disenchantment with the entire system, by not voting on 'most' policies. (They do vote on some)
I'm unaware of an equivalent of the PM's Question time, where the EU president would be held to account for things going wrong.

But saying this, I can't recall the PM's of either side, ever directly answering a question, so this weekly little parliamentary shouting charade is somewhat pointless anyway.

At least 'Cuddly Nige' has the decency to answer questions posed to him, unlike any other mainstream political leader.

UKIP hold's the top position for honesty and integrity.
[quote][p][bold]A VOTER[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tom.marlow2[/bold] wrote: Sounds very much like what happens here. Are you not aware of the vast army of bureaucrats in whitehall formulating policy which is voted on yes or no after minimal debate. Why don't your MEPs vote no if you don't like the policies being voted on?[/p][/quote]There is far more debate on policies in the UK parliament, than there ever is within Brussels - Have you seen live TV coverage of the 'yes/no' voting process? The average time taken is 30 seconds per policy, and they rattle through policies at a furious rate. Some may call this efficient policy making, but doing this without debate doesn't take into account the multitude of negative implications by voting one way or another... Highly undemocratic and unrepresentative. UKIP MP's are expressing the voters view of disenchantment with the entire system, by not voting on 'most' policies. (They do vote on some)[/p][/quote]I'm unaware of an equivalent of the PM's Question time, where the EU president would be held to account for things going wrong. But saying this, I can't recall the PM's of either side, ever directly answering a question, so this weekly little parliamentary shouting charade is somewhat pointless anyway. At least 'Cuddly Nige' has the decency to answer questions posed to him, unlike any other mainstream political leader. [bold] UKIP hold's the top position for honesty and integrity. [/bold] Average Bloke
  • Score: 2

6:05pm Sat 17 May 14

tom.marlow2 says...

So by not voting against the policies they are not expressing the views of their constituents. If you don't vote, you can't criticise the decision.

You forget that their job is to represent the interests of all their constituents, not just the ones that voted for them.

Although I didn't vote for him,at least Dominic Greive has the decency to turn up and engage with the decision making process and on the few occasions when I have raised issues with him he has justified his position and voting record to me.

How much debate has there been in the UK parliament on the issue of private NHS contract for US companies you seem to like drawing our attention to? not a lot and I don't think it actually gets voted on directly - it gets hidden is some procedural sleight of hand.

If there are decisions being made in the EU parliament that you don't think are in the best interest of your constituents then stand up and vote against them. Engage with the process and force debate. You might find you are taken more seriously. As it is, you are just taking taxpayers money and giving nothing in return.
So by not voting against the policies they are not expressing the views of their constituents. If you don't vote, you can't criticise the decision. You forget that their job is to represent the interests of all their constituents, not just the ones that voted for them. Although I didn't vote for him,at least Dominic Greive has the decency to turn up and engage with the decision making process and on the few occasions when I have raised issues with him he has justified his position and voting record to me. How much debate has there been in the UK parliament on the issue of private NHS contract for US companies you seem to like drawing our attention to? not a lot and I don't think it actually gets voted on directly - it gets hidden is some procedural sleight of hand. If there are decisions being made in the EU parliament that you don't think are in the best interest of your constituents then stand up and vote against them. Engage with the process and force debate. You might find you are taken more seriously. As it is, you are just taking taxpayers money and giving nothing in return. tom.marlow2
  • Score: 1

6:06pm Sat 17 May 14

tom.marlow2 says...

Average Bloke wrote:
A VOTER wrote:
tom.marlow2 wrote:
Sounds very much like what happens here. Are you not aware of the vast army of bureaucrats in whitehall formulating policy which is voted on yes or no after minimal debate.

Why don't your MEPs vote no if you don't like the policies being voted on?
There is far more debate on policies in the UK parliament, than there ever is within Brussels - Have you seen live TV coverage of the 'yes/no' voting process? The average time taken is 30 seconds per policy, and they rattle through policies at a furious rate. Some may call this efficient policy making, but doing this without debate doesn't take into account the multitude of negative implications by voting one way or another... Highly undemocratic and unrepresentative.

UKIP MP's are expressing the voters view of disenchantment with the entire system, by not voting on 'most' policies. (They do vote on some)
I'm unaware of an equivalent of the PM's Question time, where the EU president would be held to account for things going wrong.

But saying this, I can't recall the PM's of either side, ever directly answering a question, so this weekly little parliamentary shouting charade is somewhat pointless anyway.

At least 'Cuddly Nige' has the decency to answer questions posed to him, unlike any other mainstream political leader.

UKIP hold's the top position for honesty and integrity.
You obviously haven't watched the video clip I posted earlier
[quote][p][bold]Average Bloke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A VOTER[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tom.marlow2[/bold] wrote: Sounds very much like what happens here. Are you not aware of the vast army of bureaucrats in whitehall formulating policy which is voted on yes or no after minimal debate. Why don't your MEPs vote no if you don't like the policies being voted on?[/p][/quote]There is far more debate on policies in the UK parliament, than there ever is within Brussels - Have you seen live TV coverage of the 'yes/no' voting process? The average time taken is 30 seconds per policy, and they rattle through policies at a furious rate. Some may call this efficient policy making, but doing this without debate doesn't take into account the multitude of negative implications by voting one way or another... Highly undemocratic and unrepresentative. UKIP MP's are expressing the voters view of disenchantment with the entire system, by not voting on 'most' policies. (They do vote on some)[/p][/quote]I'm unaware of an equivalent of the PM's Question time, where the EU president would be held to account for things going wrong. But saying this, I can't recall the PM's of either side, ever directly answering a question, so this weekly little parliamentary shouting charade is somewhat pointless anyway. At least 'Cuddly Nige' has the decency to answer questions posed to him, unlike any other mainstream political leader. [bold] UKIP hold's the top position for honesty and integrity. [/bold][/p][/quote]You obviously haven't watched the video clip I posted earlier tom.marlow2
  • Score: 0

6:09pm Sat 17 May 14

Average Bloke says...

tom.marlow2 wrote:
How much debate has there been in the UK parliament on the issue of private NHS contract for US companies you seem to like drawing our attention to? not a lot and I don't think it actually gets voted on directly - it gets hidden is some procedural sleight of hand.
Now there's a valid reason to not trust the Conservatives - Or even Labour for not contesting this.
[quote][bold] tom.marlow2 [/bold] wrote: How much debate has there been in the UK parliament on the issue of private NHS contract for US companies you seem to like drawing our attention to? not a lot and I don't think it actually gets voted on directly - it gets hidden is some procedural sleight of hand. [/quote] Now there's a valid reason to not trust the Conservatives - Or even Labour for not contesting this. Average Bloke
  • Score: 4

6:12pm Sat 17 May 14

Average Bloke says...

tom.marlow2 wrote:
You obviously haven't watched the video clip I posted earlier
I did and I commented on it.... Just another media attack on UKIP.
[quote][bold] tom.marlow2 [/bold] wrote: You obviously haven't watched the video clip I posted earlier [/quote] I did and I commented on it.... Just another media attack on UKIP. Average Bloke
  • Score: 5

6:21pm Sat 17 May 14

Average Bloke says...

tom.marlow2 wrote:
So by not voting against the policies they are not expressing the views of their constituents. If you don't vote, you can't criticise the decision.
A huge percentage of the UK population no longer vote, because the mainstream parties do not represent their views, or are of the opinion that their one vote will not make a difference. UKIP are the only party with a realist opportunity to represent an alternate view of hope for this country, and for them.
[quote][bold] tom.marlow2 [/bold] wrote: So by not voting against the policies they are not expressing the views of their constituents. If you don't vote, you can't criticise the decision. [/quote] A huge percentage of the UK population no longer vote, because the mainstream parties do not represent their views, or are of the opinion that their one vote will not make a difference. UKIP are the only party with a realist opportunity to represent an alternate view of hope for this country, and for them. Average Bloke
  • Score: 4

6:55pm Sat 17 May 14

A VOTER says...

tom.marlow2 wrote:
Average Bloke wrote:
A VOTER wrote:
tom.marlow2 wrote:
Sounds very much like what happens here. Are you not aware of the vast army of bureaucrats in whitehall formulating policy which is voted on yes or no after minimal debate.

Why don't your MEPs vote no if you don't like the policies being voted on?
There is far more debate on policies in the UK parliament, than there ever is within Brussels - Have you seen live TV coverage of the 'yes/no' voting process? The average time taken is 30 seconds per policy, and they rattle through policies at a furious rate. Some may call this efficient policy making, but doing this without debate doesn't take into account the multitude of negative implications by voting one way or another... Highly undemocratic and unrepresentative.

UKIP MP's are expressing the voters view of disenchantment with the entire system, by not voting on 'most' policies. (They do vote on some)
I'm unaware of an equivalent of the PM's Question time, where the EU president would be held to account for things going wrong.

But saying this, I can't recall the PM's of either side, ever directly answering a question, so this weekly little parliamentary shouting charade is somewhat pointless anyway.

At least 'Cuddly Nige' has the decency to answer questions posed to him, unlike any other mainstream political leader.

UKIP hold's the top position for honesty and integrity.
You obviously haven't watched the video clip I posted earlier
I'd place big money on neither Cameron nor Miliband being willing to undergo that same level of interrogation on the same live radio interview/interrogat
ion. I'd also place big money on James O'Brien being less aggressive and asking less personal questions.
It would just never happen! Media Bias against UKIP.
[quote][p][bold]tom.marlow2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Average Bloke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A VOTER[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tom.marlow2[/bold] wrote: Sounds very much like what happens here. Are you not aware of the vast army of bureaucrats in whitehall formulating policy which is voted on yes or no after minimal debate. Why don't your MEPs vote no if you don't like the policies being voted on?[/p][/quote]There is far more debate on policies in the UK parliament, than there ever is within Brussels - Have you seen live TV coverage of the 'yes/no' voting process? The average time taken is 30 seconds per policy, and they rattle through policies at a furious rate. Some may call this efficient policy making, but doing this without debate doesn't take into account the multitude of negative implications by voting one way or another... Highly undemocratic and unrepresentative. UKIP MP's are expressing the voters view of disenchantment with the entire system, by not voting on 'most' policies. (They do vote on some)[/p][/quote]I'm unaware of an equivalent of the PM's Question time, where the EU president would be held to account for things going wrong. But saying this, I can't recall the PM's of either side, ever directly answering a question, so this weekly little parliamentary shouting charade is somewhat pointless anyway. At least 'Cuddly Nige' has the decency to answer questions posed to him, unlike any other mainstream political leader. [bold] UKIP hold's the top position for honesty and integrity. [/bold][/p][/quote]You obviously haven't watched the video clip I posted earlier[/p][/quote]I'd place big money on neither Cameron nor Miliband being willing to undergo that same level of interrogation on the same live radio interview/interrogat ion. I'd also place big money on James O'Brien being less aggressive and asking less personal questions. It would just never happen! Media Bias against UKIP. A VOTER
  • Score: 4

10:52am Sun 18 May 14

mistamina says...

A VOTER wrote:
tom.marlow2 wrote:
Sounds very much like what happens here. Are you not aware of the vast army of bureaucrats in whitehall formulating policy which is voted on yes or no after minimal debate.

Why don't your MEPs vote no if you don't like the policies being voted on?
There is far more debate on policies in the UK parliament, than there ever is within Brussels - Have you seen live TV coverage of the 'yes/no' voting process? The average time taken is 30 seconds per policy, and they rattle through policies at a furious rate. Some may call this efficient policy making, but doing this without debate doesn't take into account the multitude of negative implications by voting one way or another... Highly undemocratic and unrepresentative.

UKIP MP's are expressing the voters view of disenchantment with the entire system, by not voting on 'most' policies. (They do vote on some)
So will they morally claim expenses proportionate to the ''votes on some''?
Otherwise sorry but you lose the moral high ground and just become money grabbers.
[quote][p][bold]A VOTER[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tom.marlow2[/bold] wrote: Sounds very much like what happens here. Are you not aware of the vast army of bureaucrats in whitehall formulating policy which is voted on yes or no after minimal debate. Why don't your MEPs vote no if you don't like the policies being voted on?[/p][/quote]There is far more debate on policies in the UK parliament, than there ever is within Brussels - Have you seen live TV coverage of the 'yes/no' voting process? The average time taken is 30 seconds per policy, and they rattle through policies at a furious rate. Some may call this efficient policy making, but doing this without debate doesn't take into account the multitude of negative implications by voting one way or another... Highly undemocratic and unrepresentative. UKIP MP's are expressing the voters view of disenchantment with the entire system, by not voting on 'most' policies. (They do vote on some)[/p][/quote]So will they morally claim expenses proportionate to the ''votes on some''? Otherwise sorry but you lose the moral high ground and just become money grabbers. mistamina
  • Score: 0

11:09am Sun 18 May 14

mistamina says...

A VOTER wrote:
tom.marlow2 wrote:
Average Bloke wrote:
A VOTER wrote:
tom.marlow2 wrote:
Sounds very much like what happens here. Are you not aware of the vast army of bureaucrats in whitehall formulating policy which is voted on yes or no after minimal debate.

Why don't your MEPs vote no if you don't like the policies being voted on?
There is far more debate on policies in the UK parliament, than there ever is within Brussels - Have you seen live TV coverage of the 'yes/no' voting process? The average time taken is 30 seconds per policy, and they rattle through policies at a furious rate. Some may call this efficient policy making, but doing this without debate doesn't take into account the multitude of negative implications by voting one way or another... Highly undemocratic and unrepresentative.

UKIP MP's are expressing the voters view of disenchantment with the entire system, by not voting on 'most' policies. (They do vote on some)
I'm unaware of an equivalent of the PM's Question time, where the EU president would be held to account for things going wrong.

But saying this, I can't recall the PM's of either side, ever directly answering a question, so this weekly little parliamentary shouting charade is somewhat pointless anyway.

At least 'Cuddly Nige' has the decency to answer questions posed to him, unlike any other mainstream political leader.

UKIP hold's the top position for honesty and integrity.
You obviously haven't watched the video clip I posted earlier
I'd place big money on neither Cameron nor Miliband being willing to undergo that same level of interrogation on the same live radio interview/interrogat

ion. I'd also place big money on James O'Brien being less aggressive and asking less personal questions.
It would just never happen! Media Bias against UKIP.
You would lose your money. Cameron, Cl egg and Miliband are under much more scutiny than UKIP.
It feels like yours is under a lot more scrutiny because he is a good self-publicist. no denying. You and Bloke are very zealous for your views.
However, please be balanced in your debate. Simply because someone. you think looks attractive, said something that resonates with a vague idea you once picked up from somewhere in the 70/80s, does not make it right.
You must examine it very thoroughly,
If there is one thing we have learnt in British Politics is NEVER TRUST A LEADER. Granted, we may be better than some countries, but the principle is sound, WATCH THEM.
[quote][p][bold]A VOTER[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tom.marlow2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Average Bloke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A VOTER[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tom.marlow2[/bold] wrote: Sounds very much like what happens here. Are you not aware of the vast army of bureaucrats in whitehall formulating policy which is voted on yes or no after minimal debate. Why don't your MEPs vote no if you don't like the policies being voted on?[/p][/quote]There is far more debate on policies in the UK parliament, than there ever is within Brussels - Have you seen live TV coverage of the 'yes/no' voting process? The average time taken is 30 seconds per policy, and they rattle through policies at a furious rate. Some may call this efficient policy making, but doing this without debate doesn't take into account the multitude of negative implications by voting one way or another... Highly undemocratic and unrepresentative. UKIP MP's are expressing the voters view of disenchantment with the entire system, by not voting on 'most' policies. (They do vote on some)[/p][/quote]I'm unaware of an equivalent of the PM's Question time, where the EU president would be held to account for things going wrong. But saying this, I can't recall the PM's of either side, ever directly answering a question, so this weekly little parliamentary shouting charade is somewhat pointless anyway. At least 'Cuddly Nige' has the decency to answer questions posed to him, unlike any other mainstream political leader. [bold] UKIP hold's the top position for honesty and integrity. [/bold][/p][/quote]You obviously haven't watched the video clip I posted earlier[/p][/quote]I'd place big money on neither Cameron nor Miliband being willing to undergo that same level of interrogation on the same live radio interview/interrogat ion. I'd also place big money on James O'Brien being less aggressive and asking less personal questions. It would just never happen! Media Bias against UKIP.[/p][/quote]You would lose your money. Cameron, Cl egg and Miliband are under much more scutiny than UKIP. It feels like yours is under a lot more scrutiny because he is a good self-publicist. no denying. You and Bloke are very zealous for your views. However, please be balanced in your debate. Simply because someone. you think looks attractive, said something that resonates with a vague idea you once picked up from somewhere in the 70/80s, does not make it right. You must examine it very thoroughly, If there is one thing we have learnt in British Politics is NEVER TRUST A LEADER. Granted, we may be better than some countries, but the principle is sound, WATCH THEM. mistamina
  • Score: 0

11:20am Sun 18 May 14

A VOTER says...

mistamina wrote:
A VOTER wrote:
tom.marlow2 wrote:
Average Bloke wrote:
A VOTER wrote:
tom.marlow2 wrote:
Sounds very much like what happens here. Are you not aware of the vast army of bureaucrats in whitehall formulating policy which is voted on yes or no after minimal debate.

Why don't your MEPs vote no if you don't like the policies being voted on?
There is far more debate on policies in the UK parliament, than there ever is within Brussels - Have you seen live TV coverage of the 'yes/no' voting process? The average time taken is 30 seconds per policy, and they rattle through policies at a furious rate. Some may call this efficient policy making, but doing this without debate doesn't take into account the multitude of negative implications by voting one way or another... Highly undemocratic and unrepresentative.

UKIP MP's are expressing the voters view of disenchantment with the entire system, by not voting on 'most' policies. (They do vote on some)
I'm unaware of an equivalent of the PM's Question time, where the EU president would be held to account for things going wrong.

But saying this, I can't recall the PM's of either side, ever directly answering a question, so this weekly little parliamentary shouting charade is somewhat pointless anyway.

At least 'Cuddly Nige' has the decency to answer questions posed to him, unlike any other mainstream political leader.

UKIP hold's the top position for honesty and integrity.
You obviously haven't watched the video clip I posted earlier
I'd place big money on neither Cameron nor Miliband being willing to undergo that same level of interrogation on the same live radio interview/interrogat


ion. I'd also place big money on James O'Brien being less aggressive and asking less personal questions.
It would just never happen! Media Bias against UKIP.
You would lose your money. Cameron, Cl egg and Miliband are under much more scutiny than UKIP.
It feels like yours is under a lot more scrutiny because he is a good self-publicist. no denying. You and Bloke are very zealous for your views.
However, please be balanced in your debate. Simply because someone. you think looks attractive, said something that resonates with a vague idea you once picked up from somewhere in the 70/80s, does not make it right.
You must examine it very thoroughly,
If there is one thing we have learnt in British Politics is NEVER TRUST A LEADER. Granted, we may be better than some countries, but the principle is sound, WATCH THEM.
My views on the leaders has never been based on looks, although Foot always looked a complete mess. I judge leaders and parties on what they say and do. The main three have all made promises that have been broken. PM Question Time has always been a farce, where the PM has yet to answer a question. At least Nigel will give you a straight answer, and even if you don't like the answer, you're not left wondering WTF was that?
[quote][p][bold]mistamina[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A VOTER[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tom.marlow2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Average Bloke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A VOTER[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tom.marlow2[/bold] wrote: Sounds very much like what happens here. Are you not aware of the vast army of bureaucrats in whitehall formulating policy which is voted on yes or no after minimal debate. Why don't your MEPs vote no if you don't like the policies being voted on?[/p][/quote]There is far more debate on policies in the UK parliament, than there ever is within Brussels - Have you seen live TV coverage of the 'yes/no' voting process? The average time taken is 30 seconds per policy, and they rattle through policies at a furious rate. Some may call this efficient policy making, but doing this without debate doesn't take into account the multitude of negative implications by voting one way or another... Highly undemocratic and unrepresentative. UKIP MP's are expressing the voters view of disenchantment with the entire system, by not voting on 'most' policies. (They do vote on some)[/p][/quote]I'm unaware of an equivalent of the PM's Question time, where the EU president would be held to account for things going wrong. But saying this, I can't recall the PM's of either side, ever directly answering a question, so this weekly little parliamentary shouting charade is somewhat pointless anyway. At least 'Cuddly Nige' has the decency to answer questions posed to him, unlike any other mainstream political leader. [bold] UKIP hold's the top position for honesty and integrity. [/bold][/p][/quote]You obviously haven't watched the video clip I posted earlier[/p][/quote]I'd place big money on neither Cameron nor Miliband being willing to undergo that same level of interrogation on the same live radio interview/interrogat ion. I'd also place big money on James O'Brien being less aggressive and asking less personal questions. It would just never happen! Media Bias against UKIP.[/p][/quote]You would lose your money. Cameron, Cl egg and Miliband are under much more scutiny than UKIP. It feels like yours is under a lot more scrutiny because he is a good self-publicist. no denying. You and Bloke are very zealous for your views. However, please be balanced in your debate. Simply because someone. you think looks attractive, said something that resonates with a vague idea you once picked up from somewhere in the 70/80s, does not make it right. You must examine it very thoroughly, If there is one thing we have learnt in British Politics is NEVER TRUST A LEADER. Granted, we may be better than some countries, but the principle is sound, WATCH THEM.[/p][/quote]My views on the leaders has never been based on looks, although Foot always looked a complete mess. I judge leaders and parties on what they say and do. The main three have all made promises that have been broken. PM Question Time has always been a farce, where the PM has yet to answer a question. At least Nigel will give you a straight answer, and even if you don't like the answer, you're not left wondering WTF was that? A VOTER
  • Score: 4

1:01pm Sun 18 May 14

mistamina says...

Incidentally, Bloke and Average, what is officail UKIP policy on gay marriage. Still against?
Incidentally, Bloke and Average, what is officail UKIP policy on gay marriage. Still against? mistamina
  • Score: 0

1:39pm Sun 18 May 14

tom.marlow2 says...

A VOTER wrote:
mistamina wrote:
A VOTER wrote:
tom.marlow2 wrote:
Average Bloke wrote:
A VOTER wrote:
tom.marlow2 wrote:
Sounds very much like what happens here. Are you not aware of the vast army of bureaucrats in whitehall formulating policy which is voted on yes or no after minimal debate.

Why don't your MEPs vote no if you don't like the policies being voted on?
There is far more debate on policies in the UK parliament, than there ever is within Brussels - Have you seen live TV coverage of the 'yes/no' voting process? The average time taken is 30 seconds per policy, and they rattle through policies at a furious rate. Some may call this efficient policy making, but doing this without debate doesn't take into account the multitude of negative implications by voting one way or another... Highly undemocratic and unrepresentative.

UKIP MP's are expressing the voters view of disenchantment with the entire system, by not voting on 'most' policies. (They do vote on some)
I'm unaware of an equivalent of the PM's Question time, where the EU president would be held to account for things going wrong.

But saying this, I can't recall the PM's of either side, ever directly answering a question, so this weekly little parliamentary shouting charade is somewhat pointless anyway.

At least 'Cuddly Nige' has the decency to answer questions posed to him, unlike any other mainstream political leader.

UKIP hold's the top position for honesty and integrity.
You obviously haven't watched the video clip I posted earlier
I'd place big money on neither Cameron nor Miliband being willing to undergo that same level of interrogation on the same live radio interview/interrogat



ion. I'd also place big money on James O'Brien being less aggressive and asking less personal questions.
It would just never happen! Media Bias against UKIP.
You would lose your money. Cameron, Cl egg and Miliband are under much more scutiny than UKIP.
It feels like yours is under a lot more scrutiny because he is a good self-publicist. no denying. You and Bloke are very zealous for your views.
However, please be balanced in your debate. Simply because someone. you think looks attractive, said something that resonates with a vague idea you once picked up from somewhere in the 70/80s, does not make it right.
You must examine it very thoroughly,
If there is one thing we have learnt in British Politics is NEVER TRUST A LEADER. Granted, we may be better than some countries, but the principle is sound, WATCH THEM.
My views on the leaders has never been based on looks, although Foot always looked a complete mess. I judge leaders and parties on what they say and do. The main three have all made promises that have been broken. PM Question Time has always been a farce, where the PM has yet to answer a question. At least Nigel will give you a straight answer, and even if you don't like the answer, you're not left wondering WTF was that?
Again, I refer you to the video I posted earlier.

Call it media bias if you like but his answers were about as straight as a nine shilling note.
[quote][p][bold]A VOTER[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mistamina[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A VOTER[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tom.marlow2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Average Bloke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A VOTER[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tom.marlow2[/bold] wrote: Sounds very much like what happens here. Are you not aware of the vast army of bureaucrats in whitehall formulating policy which is voted on yes or no after minimal debate. Why don't your MEPs vote no if you don't like the policies being voted on?[/p][/quote]There is far more debate on policies in the UK parliament, than there ever is within Brussels - Have you seen live TV coverage of the 'yes/no' voting process? The average time taken is 30 seconds per policy, and they rattle through policies at a furious rate. Some may call this efficient policy making, but doing this without debate doesn't take into account the multitude of negative implications by voting one way or another... Highly undemocratic and unrepresentative. UKIP MP's are expressing the voters view of disenchantment with the entire system, by not voting on 'most' policies. (They do vote on some)[/p][/quote]I'm unaware of an equivalent of the PM's Question time, where the EU president would be held to account for things going wrong. But saying this, I can't recall the PM's of either side, ever directly answering a question, so this weekly little parliamentary shouting charade is somewhat pointless anyway. At least 'Cuddly Nige' has the decency to answer questions posed to him, unlike any other mainstream political leader. [bold] UKIP hold's the top position for honesty and integrity. [/bold][/p][/quote]You obviously haven't watched the video clip I posted earlier[/p][/quote]I'd place big money on neither Cameron nor Miliband being willing to undergo that same level of interrogation on the same live radio interview/interrogat ion. I'd also place big money on James O'Brien being less aggressive and asking less personal questions. It would just never happen! Media Bias against UKIP.[/p][/quote]You would lose your money. Cameron, Cl egg and Miliband are under much more scutiny than UKIP. It feels like yours is under a lot more scrutiny because he is a good self-publicist. no denying. You and Bloke are very zealous for your views. However, please be balanced in your debate. Simply because someone. you think looks attractive, said something that resonates with a vague idea you once picked up from somewhere in the 70/80s, does not make it right. You must examine it very thoroughly, If there is one thing we have learnt in British Politics is NEVER TRUST A LEADER. Granted, we may be better than some countries, but the principle is sound, WATCH THEM.[/p][/quote]My views on the leaders has never been based on looks, although Foot always looked a complete mess. I judge leaders and parties on what they say and do. The main three have all made promises that have been broken. PM Question Time has always been a farce, where the PM has yet to answer a question. At least Nigel will give you a straight answer, and even if you don't like the answer, you're not left wondering WTF was that?[/p][/quote]Again, I refer you to the video I posted earlier. Call it media bias if you like but his answers were about as straight as a nine shilling note. tom.marlow2
  • Score: -1

1:44pm Sun 18 May 14

tom.marlow2 says...

Average Bloke wrote:
tom.marlow2 wrote:
So by not voting against the policies they are not expressing the views of their constituents. If you don't vote, you can't criticise the decision.
A huge percentage of the UK population no longer vote, because the mainstream parties do not represent their views, or are of the opinion that their one vote will not make a difference. UKIP are the only party with a realist opportunity to represent an alternate view of hope for this country, and for them.
What is this "alternate view of hope" ? In fact, what does that last sentence actually mean?
[quote][p][bold]Average Bloke[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold] tom.marlow2 [/bold] wrote: So by not voting against the policies they are not expressing the views of their constituents. If you don't vote, you can't criticise the decision. [/quote] A huge percentage of the UK population no longer vote, because the mainstream parties do not represent their views, or are of the opinion that their one vote will not make a difference. UKIP are the only party with a realist opportunity to represent an alternate view of hope for this country, and for them.[/p][/quote]What is this "alternate view of hope" ? In fact, what does that last sentence actually mean? tom.marlow2
  • Score: 0

2:07pm Sun 18 May 14

Average Bloke says...

tom.marlow2 wrote:
Average Bloke wrote:
tom.marlow2 wrote:
So by not voting against the policies they are not expressing the views of their constituents. If you don't vote, you can't criticise the decision.
A huge percentage of the UK population no longer vote, because the mainstream parties do not represent their views, or are of the opinion that their one vote will not make a difference. UKIP are the only party with a realist opportunity to represent an alternate view of hope for this country, and for them.
What is this "alternate view of hope" ? In fact, what does that last sentence actually mean?
With parties that are in control now, the current outlook/view for many people is doom and gloom for the foreseeable and possibly distant future.
UKIP offers an alternate, and possible better view of the future for them.
[quote][p][bold]tom.marlow2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Average Bloke[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold] tom.marlow2 [/bold] wrote: So by not voting against the policies they are not expressing the views of their constituents. If you don't vote, you can't criticise the decision. [/quote] A huge percentage of the UK population no longer vote, because the mainstream parties do not represent their views, or are of the opinion that their one vote will not make a difference. UKIP are the only party with a realist opportunity to represent an alternate view of hope for this country, and for them.[/p][/quote]What is this "alternate view of hope" ? In fact, what does that last sentence actually mean?[/p][/quote]With parties that are in control now, the current outlook/view for many people is doom and gloom for the foreseeable and possibly distant future. UKIP offers an alternate, and possible better view of the future for them. Average Bloke
  • Score: 4

2:14pm Sun 18 May 14

mistamina says...

UKIP, good news and bad news for you boyos.
The Sun appears to be abandoning you, it say Nigy-Wagy has proven himself a racist.
BUT The mail is still on side. I copy:
'Ukip still set for landmark victory in Euro elections despite allegations of racism
Ukip is set for landmark victory in the European elections, says new poll
Party is leading with 35 per cent among those 'absolutely certain' to vote
Labour is on 24 per cent, while Conservatives have dropped to 20 per cent
Comes as Nigel Farage has denied allegations of racism in LBC interview
Claimed he would be concerned if group of Romanians moved next door
Added there are 'differences' between Romanian and German immigrants
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg accused Mr Farage of 'divisive politics'
Meanwhile, Ed Miliband said remarks were 'deeply offensive' but not racist
Read more: http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/news/article-
2631799/Ukip-set-lan
dmark-victory-Europe
an-elections-despite
-allegations-racism-
against-leader-Nigel
-Farage.html#ixzz324
YcD2XN
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
UKIP, good news and bad news for you boyos. The Sun appears to be abandoning you, it say Nigy-Wagy has proven himself a racist. BUT The mail is still on side. I copy: 'Ukip still set for landmark victory in Euro elections despite allegations of racism Ukip is set for landmark victory in the European elections, says new poll Party is leading with 35 per cent among those 'absolutely certain' to vote Labour is on 24 per cent, while Conservatives have dropped to 20 per cent Comes as Nigel Farage has denied allegations of racism in LBC interview Claimed he would be concerned if group of Romanians moved next door Added there are 'differences' between Romanian and German immigrants Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg accused Mr Farage of 'divisive politics' Meanwhile, Ed Miliband said remarks were 'deeply offensive' but not racist Read more: http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 2631799/Ukip-set-lan dmark-victory-Europe an-elections-despite -allegations-racism- against-leader-Nigel -Farage.html#ixzz324 YcD2XN Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook mistamina
  • Score: -1

3:08pm Sun 18 May 14

tom.marlow2 says...

Average Bloke wrote:
tom.marlow2 wrote:
Average Bloke wrote:
tom.marlow2 wrote:
So by not voting against the policies they are not expressing the views of their constituents. If you don't vote, you can't criticise the decision.
A huge percentage of the UK population no longer vote, because the mainstream parties do not represent their views, or are of the opinion that their one vote will not make a difference. UKIP are the only party with a realist opportunity to represent an alternate view of hope for this country, and for them.
What is this "alternate view of hope" ? In fact, what does that last sentence actually mean?
With parties that are in control now, the current outlook/view for many people is doom and gloom for the foreseeable and possibly distant future.
UKIP offers an alternate, and possible better view of the future for them.
But what is this "better view"? People speaking english on public transport? No entry for Romanians? What?

I really don't see anything tangible being offered. It all seems to be very shallow and aimed at reinforcing ill-informed prejudices in an attempt to gain votes at any cost. Even when you get past straw men like the 46 million east europeans (what happened to them btw? ) all that remains is platitudes about removing inefficient bureaucracy in the NHS (how are you going to do that, I assume not by contraction American companies?) and replacing the tax bands with some others that are slightly different (but without telling us how the sums work and how the money lost from removing employers NI will be replaced) As they say when you are doing exams, you need to show your working out.

What are you going to do about massive tax avoidance by the likes of Starbucks, Vodaphone and Amazon? What are you going to do about the cartel of energy companies?
[quote][p][bold]Average Bloke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tom.marlow2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Average Bloke[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold] tom.marlow2 [/bold] wrote: So by not voting against the policies they are not expressing the views of their constituents. If you don't vote, you can't criticise the decision. [/quote] A huge percentage of the UK population no longer vote, because the mainstream parties do not represent their views, or are of the opinion that their one vote will not make a difference. UKIP are the only party with a realist opportunity to represent an alternate view of hope for this country, and for them.[/p][/quote]What is this "alternate view of hope" ? In fact, what does that last sentence actually mean?[/p][/quote]With parties that are in control now, the current outlook/view for many people is doom and gloom for the foreseeable and possibly distant future. UKIP offers an alternate, and possible better view of the future for them.[/p][/quote]But what is this "better view"? People speaking english on public transport? No entry for Romanians? What? I really don't see anything tangible being offered. It all seems to be very shallow and aimed at reinforcing ill-informed prejudices in an attempt to gain votes at any cost. Even when you get past straw men like the 46 million east europeans (what happened to them btw? ) all that remains is platitudes about removing inefficient bureaucracy in the NHS (how are you going to do that, I assume not by contraction American companies?) and replacing the tax bands with some others that are slightly different (but without telling us how the sums work and how the money lost from removing employers NI will be replaced) As they say when you are doing exams, you need to show your working out. What are you going to do about massive tax avoidance by the likes of Starbucks, Vodaphone and Amazon? What are you going to do about the cartel of energy companies? tom.marlow2
  • Score: 0

3:40pm Sun 18 May 14

Average Bloke says...

Well at least we're trying to make things better for this country. It follows on from the old adage to the sizable numbers of non-voting public who were told that if they didn't like the current parties, then they should start their own party and stand for what 'they' believed in. We're now doing just that.

We're mainly non-politicians, who are dismayed at what is being done to this country and the people of this country.

Let me ask the traditional party voters here: Do you think that by voting any of the current three parties back into power, that life for the British population will get better?
Well at least we're trying to make things better for this country. It follows on from the old adage to the sizable numbers of non-voting public who were told that if they didn't like the current parties, then they should start their own party and stand for what 'they' believed in. We're now doing just that. We're mainly non-politicians, who are dismayed at what is being done to this country and the people of this country. Let me ask the traditional party voters here: Do you think that by voting any of the current three parties back into power, that life for the British population will get better? Average Bloke
  • Score: 5

6:13pm Sun 18 May 14

tom.marlow2 says...

Average Bloke wrote:
Well at least we're trying to make things better for this country. It follows on from the old adage to the sizable numbers of non-voting public who were told that if they didn't like the current parties, then they should start their own party and stand for what 'they' believed in. We're now doing just that.

We're mainly non-politicians, who are dismayed at what is being done to this country and the people of this country.

Let me ask the traditional party voters here: Do you think that by voting any of the current three parties back into power, that life for the British population will get better?
And do you think voting for people like this is going to make life better ?

http://www.independe
nt.co.uk/news/uk/pol
itics/ukip-chairwoma
n-janice-atkinson-wh
o-called-for-protest
ers-who-hurl-abuse-t
o-be-arrested-caught
-swearing-at-antirac
ism-activists-939214
7.html

Of course this just proves Mr Bloke's and Mr Voter's claims of media bias against UKIP. Thy must have made it up.
[quote][p][bold]Average Bloke[/bold] wrote: Well at least we're trying to make things better for this country. It follows on from the old adage to the sizable numbers of non-voting public who were told that if they didn't like the current parties, then they should start their own party and stand for what 'they' believed in. We're now doing just that. We're mainly non-politicians, who are dismayed at what is being done to this country and the people of this country. Let me ask the traditional party voters here: Do you think that by voting any of the current three parties back into power, that life for the British population will get better?[/p][/quote]And do you think voting for people like this is going to make life better ? http://www.independe nt.co.uk/news/uk/pol itics/ukip-chairwoma n-janice-atkinson-wh o-called-for-protest ers-who-hurl-abuse-t o-be-arrested-caught -swearing-at-antirac ism-activists-939214 7.html Of course this just proves Mr Bloke's and Mr Voter's claims of media bias against UKIP. Thy must have made it up. tom.marlow2
  • Score: -1

7:48pm Sun 18 May 14

Average Bloke says...

tom.marlow2 wrote:
Average Bloke wrote:
Well at least we're trying to make things better for this country. It follows on from the old adage to the sizable numbers of non-voting public who were told that if they didn't like the current parties, then they should start their own party and stand for what 'they' believed in. We're now doing just that.

We're mainly non-politicians, who are dismayed at what is being done to this country and the people of this country.

Let me ask the traditional party voters here: Do you think that by voting any of the current three parties back into power, that life for the British population will get better?
And do you think voting for people like this is going to make life better ?

http://www.independe

nt.co.uk/news/uk/pol

itics/ukip-chairwoma

n-janice-atkinson-wh

o-called-for-protest

ers-who-hurl-abuse-t

o-be-arrested-caught

-swearing-at-antirac

ism-activists-939214

7.html

Of course this just proves Mr Bloke's and Mr Voter's claims of media bias against UKIP. Thy must have made it up.
And I suppose that you think that she is representative of all of all UKIP supporters.
Therefore, by the same flawed system of assumptions, the Conservative Councillor who appeared in court this week on paedophilia charges is representative of 'ALL' Conservative voters.

Most UKIP supporters are not like her.
[quote][p][bold]tom.marlow2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Average Bloke[/bold] wrote: Well at least we're trying to make things better for this country. It follows on from the old adage to the sizable numbers of non-voting public who were told that if they didn't like the current parties, then they should start their own party and stand for what 'they' believed in. We're now doing just that. We're mainly non-politicians, who are dismayed at what is being done to this country and the people of this country. Let me ask the traditional party voters here: Do you think that by voting any of the current three parties back into power, that life for the British population will get better?[/p][/quote]And do you think voting for people like this is going to make life better ? http://www.independe nt.co.uk/news/uk/pol itics/ukip-chairwoma n-janice-atkinson-wh o-called-for-protest ers-who-hurl-abuse-t o-be-arrested-caught -swearing-at-antirac ism-activists-939214 7.html Of course this just proves Mr Bloke's and Mr Voter's claims of media bias against UKIP. Thy must have made it up.[/p][/quote]And I suppose that you think that she is representative of all of all UKIP supporters. Therefore, by the same flawed system of assumptions, the Conservative Councillor who appeared in court this week on paedophilia charges is representative of 'ALL' Conservative voters. Most UKIP supporters are not like her. Average Bloke
  • Score: 4

7:51pm Sun 18 May 14

tom.marlow2 says...

Average Bloke wrote:
tom.marlow2 wrote:
Average Bloke wrote:
Well at least we're trying to make things better for this country. It follows on from the old adage to the sizable numbers of non-voting public who were told that if they didn't like the current parties, then they should start their own party and stand for what 'they' believed in. We're now doing just that.

We're mainly non-politicians, who are dismayed at what is being done to this country and the people of this country.

Let me ask the traditional party voters here: Do you think that by voting any of the current three parties back into power, that life for the British population will get better?
And do you think voting for people like this is going to make life better ?

http://www.independe


nt.co.uk/news/uk/pol


itics/ukip-chairwoma


n-janice-atkinson-wh


o-called-for-protest


ers-who-hurl-abuse-t


o-be-arrested-caught


-swearing-at-antirac


ism-activists-939214


7.html

Of course this just proves Mr Bloke's and Mr Voter's claims of media bias against UKIP. Thy must have made it up.
And I suppose that you think that she is representative of all of all UKIP supporters.
Therefore, by the same flawed system of assumptions, the Conservative Councillor who appeared in court this week on paedophilia charges is representative of 'ALL' Conservative voters.

Most UKIP supporters are not like her.
She is not just a "UKIP supporter" She is one of the candidates standing in our constituency.

And you seriously think people are going to want to vote for someone like that?
[quote][p][bold]Average Bloke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tom.marlow2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Average Bloke[/bold] wrote: Well at least we're trying to make things better for this country. It follows on from the old adage to the sizable numbers of non-voting public who were told that if they didn't like the current parties, then they should start their own party and stand for what 'they' believed in. We're now doing just that. We're mainly non-politicians, who are dismayed at what is being done to this country and the people of this country. Let me ask the traditional party voters here: Do you think that by voting any of the current three parties back into power, that life for the British population will get better?[/p][/quote]And do you think voting for people like this is going to make life better ? http://www.independe nt.co.uk/news/uk/pol itics/ukip-chairwoma n-janice-atkinson-wh o-called-for-protest ers-who-hurl-abuse-t o-be-arrested-caught -swearing-at-antirac ism-activists-939214 7.html Of course this just proves Mr Bloke's and Mr Voter's claims of media bias against UKIP. Thy must have made it up.[/p][/quote]And I suppose that you think that she is representative of all of all UKIP supporters. Therefore, by the same flawed system of assumptions, the Conservative Councillor who appeared in court this week on paedophilia charges is representative of 'ALL' Conservative voters. Most UKIP supporters are not like her.[/p][/quote]She is not just a "UKIP supporter" She is one of the candidates standing in our constituency. And you seriously think people are going to want to vote for someone like that? tom.marlow2
  • Score: -4

8:13pm Sun 18 May 14

Average Bloke says...

tom.marlow2 wrote:
She is not just a "UKIP supporter" She is one of the candidates standing in our constituency.

And you seriously think people are going to want to vote for someone like that?
And you seriously think we should vote for all those Conservative and Labour war mongers, and expenses fiddlers, including those supported by David Cameron? The people responsible for the deaths of so many soldiers in illegal wars that have absolutely nothing to do with the UK? The people that sold off our Gold, and Royal Mail at discount prices to their friends???

Go ahead, vote them back in.
[quote][bold] tom.marlow2 [/bold] wrote: She is not just a "UKIP supporter" She is one of the candidates standing in our constituency. And you seriously think people are going to want to vote for someone like that? [/quote] And you seriously think we should vote for all those Conservative and Labour war mongers, and expenses fiddlers, including those supported by David Cameron? The people responsible for the deaths of so many soldiers in illegal wars that have absolutely nothing to do with the UK? The people that sold off our Gold, and Royal Mail at discount prices to their friends??? Go ahead, vote them back in. Average Bloke
  • Score: 6

8:37pm Sun 18 May 14

tom.marlow2 says...

Which of the conservative and labour candidates in our constituency are war-mongers and/or expense fiddlers? Please identify them so I can avoid voting for them.

I've been drawing attention to the publicly recorded behaviour of the 2 main UKIP candidates in our constituency.
Which of the conservative and labour candidates in our constituency are war-mongers and/or expense fiddlers? Please identify them so I can avoid voting for them. I've been drawing attention to the publicly recorded behaviour of the 2 main UKIP candidates in our constituency. tom.marlow2
  • Score: -6

10:47pm Sun 18 May 14

Average Bloke says...

tom.marlow2 wrote:
Which of the conservative and labour candidates in our constituency are war-mongers and/or expense fiddlers? Please identify them so I can avoid voting for them.

I've been drawing attention to the publicly recorded behaviour of the 2 main UKIP candidates in our constituency.
I think you know very well the sordid history of Labour and Conservative war crime and expenses fiddler personalities.

Prior to your very last post, you hadn't mentioned her anywhere.

Both Labour and Conservatives are guilty of war crimes, and the deaths of so many British soldiers in wars that had nothing to do with the UK.

Both Labour and Conservatives are guilty of destroying the basic fabric and integrity of this country.

Are you really happy to vote them back into power?
[quote][p][bold]tom.marlow2[/bold] wrote: Which of the conservative and labour candidates in our constituency are war-mongers and/or expense fiddlers? Please identify them so I can avoid voting for them. I've been drawing attention to the publicly recorded behaviour of the 2 main UKIP candidates in our constituency.[/p][/quote]I think you know very well the sordid history of Labour and Conservative war crime and expenses fiddler personalities. Prior to your very last post, you hadn't mentioned her anywhere. Both Labour and Conservatives are guilty of war crimes, and the deaths of so many British soldiers in wars that had nothing to do with the UK. Both Labour and Conservatives are guilty of destroying the basic fabric and integrity of this country. Are you really happy to vote them back into power? Average Bloke
  • Score: 9

10:52pm Sun 18 May 14

Average Bloke says...

And just how can you compare the middle finger gesture combined with a retort of 'F**k off' by a UKIP MEP candidate, with the deaths of many thousands of innocent civilians at the hands of the British government?
And just how can you compare the middle finger gesture combined with a retort of 'F**k off' by a UKIP MEP candidate, with the deaths of many thousands of innocent civilians at the hands of the British government? Average Bloke
  • Score: 6

6:47am Mon 19 May 14

demoness the second says...

I notice that AB/Voter has nicely avoided the questions re gay marriage and tax avoidance by big companies.
I notice that AB/Voter has nicely avoided the questions re gay marriage and tax avoidance by big companies. demoness the second
  • Score: 0

7:05am Mon 19 May 14

A VOTER says...

mistamina wrote:
Incidentally, Bloke and Average, what is officail UKIP policy on gay marriage. Still against?
Me personally, it doesn't bother me what two adult people of any gender, in a mutually consenting relationship get up to, be it living together, a civil partnership, or marriage.
However, my 'understanding' on UKIP's stance on Gay Marriage, is that the newly introduced laws on marriage, that allow for a full legal marriage status, is possibly flawed on religious grounds. That is to say, it would become illegal for any religious organisation, be it Christian, Jewish, Muslim etc, to refuse a gay marriage within their houses of worship. Essentially, the new law rides roughshod over religion, and ignores the rights/laws of any religion.

So the real question on this is; should the government be 'forcing' the Church and other religions, to conduct gay marriages, if it's against their religious laws? Hence UKIP's stance against this law as written.

I'm all for live and let live. Providing it's consensual and hurts no one, then everyone should be free to marry whoever they wish.
[quote][p][bold]mistamina[/bold] wrote: Incidentally, Bloke and Average, what is officail UKIP policy on gay marriage. Still against?[/p][/quote]Me personally, it doesn't bother me what two adult people of any gender, in a mutually consenting relationship get up to, be it living together, a civil partnership, or marriage. However, my 'understanding' on UKIP's stance on Gay Marriage, is that the newly introduced laws on marriage, that allow for a full legal marriage status, is possibly flawed on religious grounds. That is to say, it would become illegal for any religious organisation, be it Christian, Jewish, Muslim etc, to refuse a gay marriage within their houses of worship. Essentially, the new law rides roughshod over religion, and ignores the rights/laws of any religion. So the real question on this is; should the government be 'forcing' the Church and other religions, to conduct gay marriages, if it's against their religious laws? Hence UKIP's stance against this law as written. I'm all for live and let live. Providing it's consensual and hurts no one, then everyone should be free to marry whoever they wish. A VOTER
  • Score: 3

7:10am Mon 19 May 14

A VOTER says...

demoness the second wrote:
I notice that AB/Voter has nicely avoided the questions re gay marriage and tax avoidance by big companies.
I hope my answer on gay marriage meets with you approval demoness :-)
Tax avoidance: Again, this is only my understanding, but UKIP's stance on the big companies engaging in tax avoidance would be heavily clamped down upon for all trade within the UK, and a similar approach on individuals using off-shore accounts to hide income generated in the UK.
[quote][p][bold]demoness the second[/bold] wrote: I notice that AB/Voter has nicely avoided the questions re gay marriage and tax avoidance by big companies.[/p][/quote]I hope my answer on gay marriage meets with you approval [bold] demoness [/bold] :-) Tax avoidance: Again, this is only my understanding, but UKIP's stance on the big companies engaging in tax avoidance would be heavily clamped down upon for all trade within the UK, and a similar approach on individuals using off-shore accounts to hide income generated in the UK. A VOTER
  • Score: 4

8:46am Mon 19 May 14

tom.marlow2 says...

Depends on the context. If you are talking about suitability as a candidate the actions of the British government are hardly relevant. After all, the british government has a track record of killing thousands of innocent civilians going back hundreds of years. So do many other governments

I'm not suggesting that its OK, just that its not really an answer to questions about whether the behaviour of your candidates is appropriate.
Depends on the context. If you are talking about suitability as a candidate the actions of the British government are hardly relevant. After all, the british government has a track record of killing thousands of innocent civilians going back hundreds of years. So do many other governments I'm not suggesting that its OK, just that its not really an answer to questions about whether the behaviour of your candidates is appropriate. tom.marlow2
  • Score: 1

8:48am Mon 19 May 14

tom.marlow2 says...

Average Bloke wrote:
tom.marlow2 wrote:
Which of the conservative and labour candidates in our constituency are war-mongers and/or expense fiddlers? Please identify them so I can avoid voting for them.

I've been drawing attention to the publicly recorded behaviour of the 2 main UKIP candidates in our constituency.
I think you know very well the sordid history of Labour and Conservative war crime and expenses fiddler personalities.

Prior to your very last post, you hadn't mentioned her anywhere.

Both Labour and Conservatives are guilty of war crimes, and the deaths of so many British soldiers in wars that had nothing to do with the UK.

Both Labour and Conservatives are guilty of destroying the basic fabric and integrity of this country.

Are you really happy to vote them back into power?
Prior to my previous post it hadn't gone viral on FB and twitter
[quote][p][bold]Average Bloke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tom.marlow2[/bold] wrote: Which of the conservative and labour candidates in our constituency are war-mongers and/or expense fiddlers? Please identify them so I can avoid voting for them. I've been drawing attention to the publicly recorded behaviour of the 2 main UKIP candidates in our constituency.[/p][/quote]I think you know very well the sordid history of Labour and Conservative war crime and expenses fiddler personalities. Prior to your very last post, you hadn't mentioned her anywhere. Both Labour and Conservatives are guilty of war crimes, and the deaths of so many British soldiers in wars that had nothing to do with the UK. Both Labour and Conservatives are guilty of destroying the basic fabric and integrity of this country. Are you really happy to vote them back into power?[/p][/quote]Prior to my previous post it hadn't gone viral on FB and twitter tom.marlow2
  • Score: -2

9:02am Mon 19 May 14

tom.marlow2 says...

A VOTER wrote:
mistamina wrote:
Incidentally, Bloke and Average, what is officail UKIP policy on gay marriage. Still against?
Me personally, it doesn't bother me what two adult people of any gender, in a mutually consenting relationship get up to, be it living together, a civil partnership, or marriage.
However, my 'understanding' on UKIP's stance on Gay Marriage, is that the newly introduced laws on marriage, that allow for a full legal marriage status, is possibly flawed on religious grounds. That is to say, it would become illegal for any religious organisation, be it Christian, Jewish, Muslim etc, to refuse a gay marriage within their houses of worship. Essentially, the new law rides roughshod over religion, and ignores the rights/laws of any religion.

So the real question on this is; should the government be 'forcing' the Church and other religions, to conduct gay marriages, if it's against their religious laws? Hence UKIP's stance against this law as written.

I'm all for live and let live. Providing it's consensual and hurts no one, then everyone should be free to marry whoever they wish.
Actually, the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 includes an explicit, categorical ban on the Church of England and the Church in Wales carrying our same-sex marriage, even if they wish too. There's a good article by Peter Tatchell in the current issue of 'New Humanist' explaining why even though the act is a huge step forward the laws in this area are still very discriminatory

So the claim that the act forces the church to do things contrary to its beliefs is rather hollow.

This is yet another example of UKIP just making stuff up
[quote][p][bold]A VOTER[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mistamina[/bold] wrote: Incidentally, Bloke and Average, what is officail UKIP policy on gay marriage. Still against?[/p][/quote]Me personally, it doesn't bother me what two adult people of any gender, in a mutually consenting relationship get up to, be it living together, a civil partnership, or marriage. However, my 'understanding' on UKIP's stance on Gay Marriage, is that the newly introduced laws on marriage, that allow for a full legal marriage status, is possibly flawed on religious grounds. That is to say, it would become illegal for any religious organisation, be it Christian, Jewish, Muslim etc, to refuse a gay marriage within their houses of worship. Essentially, the new law rides roughshod over religion, and ignores the rights/laws of any religion. So the real question on this is; should the government be 'forcing' the Church and other religions, to conduct gay marriages, if it's against their religious laws? Hence UKIP's stance against this law as written. I'm all for live and let live. Providing it's consensual and hurts no one, then everyone should be free to marry whoever they wish.[/p][/quote]Actually, the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 includes an explicit, categorical ban on the Church of England and the Church in Wales carrying our same-sex marriage, even if they wish too. There's a good article by Peter Tatchell in the current issue of 'New Humanist' explaining why even though the act is a huge step forward the laws in this area are still very discriminatory So the claim that the act forces the church to do things contrary to its beliefs is rather hollow. This is yet another example of UKIP just making stuff up tom.marlow2
  • Score: -2

9:05am Mon 19 May 14

Average Bloke says...

tom.marlow2 wrote:
Depends on the context. If you are talking about suitability as a candidate the actions of the British government are hardly relevant. After all, the british government has a track record of killing thousands of innocent civilians going back hundreds of years. So do many other governments

I'm not suggesting that its OK, just that its not really an answer to questions about whether the behaviour of your candidates is appropriate.
The behaviour of that particular candidate is not necessarily appropriate, but was in response to sustained heckling and abuse.
But that's not a reason to discount her as a suitable candidate. Inappropriate, yes.

However, compare that to the Prime Ministers actions over the last 18 years. Had they just told people to F**k off and raised a middle finger, that would have been forgiven, eventually. Instead, they instigated unprovoked war on foreign countries, costing the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, along with thousands of British & American military servicemen & women, costing this country Billions in military expenditure, and costing continued millions, to this day, in extra security measures.

Is your vote for the finger waving party, or the instigators of war parties?
[quote][p][bold]tom.marlow2[/bold] wrote: Depends on the context. If you are talking about suitability as a candidate the actions of the British government are hardly relevant. After all, the british government has a track record of killing thousands of innocent civilians going back hundreds of years. So do many other governments I'm not suggesting that its OK, just that its not really an answer to questions about whether the behaviour of your candidates is appropriate.[/p][/quote]The behaviour of that particular candidate is not necessarily appropriate, but was in response to sustained heckling and abuse. But that's not a reason to discount her as a suitable candidate. Inappropriate, yes. However, compare that to the Prime Ministers actions over the last 18 years. Had they just told people to F**k off and raised a middle finger, that would have been forgiven, eventually. Instead, they instigated unprovoked war on foreign countries, costing the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, along with thousands of British & American military servicemen & women, costing this country Billions in military expenditure, and costing continued millions, to this day, in extra security measures. Is your vote for the finger waving party, or the instigators of war parties? Average Bloke
  • Score: 5

10:10am Mon 19 May 14

A VOTER says...

tom.marlow2 wrote:
Actually, the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 includes an explicit, categorical ban on the Church of England and the Church in Wales carrying our same-sex marriage, even if they wish too. There's a good article by Peter Tatchell in the current issue of 'New Humanist' explaining why even though the act is a huge step forward the laws in this area are still very discriminatory

So the claim that the act forces the church to do things contrary to its beliefs is rather hollow.

This is yet another example of UKIP just making stuff up
I very clearly said that this was my 'understanding' of the UKIP stance. I do not write UKIP policy, and I'm not a UKIP politician. Therefore I am as likely to make errors, as anyone else. I am not making this stuff up. The qualifier was very clear for everyone to read.

I also very clearly stated my own views on the topic.
[quote][bold] tom.marlow2 [/bold] wrote: Actually, the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 includes an explicit, categorical ban on the Church of England and the Church in Wales carrying our same-sex marriage, even if they wish too. There's a good article by Peter Tatchell in the current issue of 'New Humanist' explaining why even though the act is a huge step forward the laws in this area are still very discriminatory So the claim that the act forces the church to do things contrary to its beliefs is rather hollow. This is yet another example of UKIP just making stuff up [/quote] I very clearly said that this was my [bold] 'understanding' [/bold] of the UKIP stance. I do not write UKIP policy, and I'm not a UKIP politician. Therefore I am as likely to make errors, as anyone else. I am not making this stuff up. The qualifier was very clear for everyone to read. I also very clearly stated my own views on the topic. A VOTER
  • Score: 3

10:10am Mon 19 May 14

tom.marlow2 says...

Average Bloke wrote:
tom.marlow2 wrote:
Depends on the context. If you are talking about suitability as a candidate the actions of the British government are hardly relevant. After all, the british government has a track record of killing thousands of innocent civilians going back hundreds of years. So do many other governments

I'm not suggesting that its OK, just that its not really an answer to questions about whether the behaviour of your candidates is appropriate.
The behaviour of that particular candidate is not necessarily appropriate, but was in response to sustained heckling and abuse.
But that's not a reason to discount her as a suitable candidate. Inappropriate, yes.

However, compare that to the Prime Ministers actions over the last 18 years. Had they just told people to F**k off and raised a middle finger, that would have been forgiven, eventually. Instead, they instigated unprovoked war on foreign countries, costing the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, along with thousands of British & American military servicemen & women, costing this country Billions in military expenditure, and costing continued millions, to this day, in extra security measures.

Is your vote for the finger waving party, or the instigators of war parties?
Neither. The Green Party neither start wars nor swear at hecklers
[quote][p][bold]Average Bloke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tom.marlow2[/bold] wrote: Depends on the context. If you are talking about suitability as a candidate the actions of the British government are hardly relevant. After all, the british government has a track record of killing thousands of innocent civilians going back hundreds of years. So do many other governments I'm not suggesting that its OK, just that its not really an answer to questions about whether the behaviour of your candidates is appropriate.[/p][/quote]The behaviour of that particular candidate is not necessarily appropriate, but was in response to sustained heckling and abuse. But that's not a reason to discount her as a suitable candidate. Inappropriate, yes. However, compare that to the Prime Ministers actions over the last 18 years. Had they just told people to F**k off and raised a middle finger, that would have been forgiven, eventually. Instead, they instigated unprovoked war on foreign countries, costing the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, along with thousands of British & American military servicemen & women, costing this country Billions in military expenditure, and costing continued millions, to this day, in extra security measures. Is your vote for the finger waving party, or the instigators of war parties?[/p][/quote]Neither. The Green Party neither start wars nor swear at hecklers tom.marlow2
  • Score: 1

10:19am Mon 19 May 14

mistamina says...

tom.marlow2 wrote:
Which of the conservative and labour candidates in our constituency are war-mongers and/or expense fiddlers? Please identify them so I can avoid voting for them.

I've been drawing attention to the publicly recorded behaviour of the 2 main UKIP candidates in our constituency.
Tom, i have missed the publicly recorded behaviour of the 2 main UKIP candidates in our constituency.
Please point me where i mat see this.
[quote][p][bold]tom.marlow2[/bold] wrote: Which of the conservative and labour candidates in our constituency are war-mongers and/or expense fiddlers? Please identify them so I can avoid voting for them. I've been drawing attention to the publicly recorded behaviour of the 2 main UKIP candidates in our constituency.[/p][/quote]Tom, i have missed the publicly recorded behaviour of the 2 main UKIP candidates in our constituency. Please point me where i mat see this. mistamina
  • Score: 0

10:51am Mon 19 May 14

Average Bloke says...

tom.marlow2 wrote:
The Green Party neither start wars nor swear at hecklers
No, maybe not, but they seem quite happy to harass members of the public who chat to UKIP members at a UKIP street stalls, to the point where members of the public call the police. And they are quite happy to call members of the public, fascists, and bigoted racists. Is it therefore that surprising that the UKIP candidate responded in the way she did?

Please also bear in mind, that UKIP members have been on the receiving end of violence, physical attacks and bricks through windows, from a mixture of political parties. A middle finger combined with a request to 'F**k Off' seems quite mild by comparison. Not approved of, but understandable.
[quote][bold] tom.marlow2 [/bold] wrote: The Green Party neither start wars nor swear at hecklers [/quote] No, maybe not, but they seem quite happy to harass members of the public who chat to UKIP members at a UKIP street stalls, to the point where members of the public call the police. And they are quite happy to call members of the public, fascists, and bigoted racists. Is it therefore that surprising that the UKIP candidate responded in the way she did? Please also bear in mind, that UKIP members have been on the receiving end of violence, physical attacks and bricks through windows, from a mixture of political parties. A middle finger combined with a request to 'F**k Off' seems quite mild by comparison. Not approved of, but understandable. Average Bloke
  • Score: 5

11:00am Mon 19 May 14

tom.marlow2 says...

mistamina wrote:
tom.marlow2 wrote:
Which of the conservative and labour candidates in our constituency are war-mongers and/or expense fiddlers? Please identify them so I can avoid voting for them.

I've been drawing attention to the publicly recorded behaviour of the 2 main UKIP candidates in our constituency.
Tom, i have missed the publicly recorded behaviour of the 2 main UKIP candidates in our constituency.
Please point me where i mat see this.
http://www.independe

nt.co.uk/news/uk/pol

itics/ukip-chairwoma

n-janice-atkinson-wh

o-called-for-protest

ers-who-hurl-abuse-t

o-be-arrested-caught

-swearing-at-antirac

ism-activists-939214

7.html

and for Nigel dissembling, the video http://www.huffingto

npost.co.uk/2014/05/

16/nigel-farage-ukip

-lbc-interview-video

_n_5336322.html?1400

238903--&utm_hp_ref=

fb&src=sp&comm_ref=f

alse


It seems also that they are not above trying to get the police to suppress criticism ....
http://www.theguardi
an.com/commentisfree
/2014/may/17/why-is-
ukip-scared-of-a-goo
d-argument

But still everyone else is far worse. It seems its OK to behave badly because other people do.
[quote][p][bold]mistamina[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tom.marlow2[/bold] wrote: Which of the conservative and labour candidates in our constituency are war-mongers and/or expense fiddlers? Please identify them so I can avoid voting for them. I've been drawing attention to the publicly recorded behaviour of the 2 main UKIP candidates in our constituency.[/p][/quote]Tom, i have missed the publicly recorded behaviour of the 2 main UKIP candidates in our constituency. Please point me where i mat see this.[/p][/quote]http://www.independe nt.co.uk/news/uk/pol itics/ukip-chairwoma n-janice-atkinson-wh o-called-for-protest ers-who-hurl-abuse-t o-be-arrested-caught -swearing-at-antirac ism-activists-939214 7.html and for Nigel dissembling, the video http://www.huffingto npost.co.uk/2014/05/ 16/nigel-farage-ukip -lbc-interview-video _n_5336322.html?1400 238903--&utm_hp_ref= fb&src=sp&comm_ref=f alse It seems also that they are not above trying to get the police to suppress criticism .... http://www.theguardi an.com/commentisfree /2014/may/17/why-is- ukip-scared-of-a-goo d-argument But still everyone else is far worse. It seems its OK to behave badly because other people do. tom.marlow2
  • Score: -3

11:01am Mon 19 May 14

mistamina says...

Bloke Voter, thank you engaging, and not sprouting out mindless party lines.
A 'small' numbers of members, candidates, spokesmen, sponsors and others in the UKIP that have either behave inappropriately, sworn, given the finger, are confused on racism or simply straight forward, no-nonsense racists. Then there are links to BNP, NF, etc.
I cannot see UKIP doing anything about these people pre-Election. Since you respect religion, you will say boot these people out immediately, this would be morally right, however political suicide!
So will have to take firm assertive tough actions and get rid of these 'idiots (Niges word) post-election?
Can you assure us of total action, accountability and transparency post-election in Bucks? And who will lead this?
Bloke Voter, thank you engaging, and not sprouting out mindless party lines. A 'small' numbers of members, candidates, spokesmen, sponsors and others in the UKIP that have either behave inappropriately, sworn, given the finger, are confused on racism or simply straight forward, no-nonsense racists. Then there are links to BNP, NF, etc. I cannot see UKIP doing anything about these people pre-Election. Since you respect religion, you will say boot these people out immediately, this would be morally right, however political suicide! So will have to take firm assertive tough actions and get rid of these 'idiots (Niges word) post-election? Can you assure us of total action, accountability and transparency post-election in Bucks? And who will lead this? mistamina
  • Score: 0

12:14pm Mon 19 May 14

Average Bloke says...

mistamina wrote:
Bloke Voter, thank you engaging, and not sprouting out mindless party lines.
A 'small' numbers of members, candidates, spokesmen, sponsors and others in the UKIP that have either behave inappropriately, sworn, given the finger, are confused on racism or simply straight forward, no-nonsense racists. Then there are links to BNP, NF, etc.
I cannot see UKIP doing anything about these people pre-Election. Since you respect religion, you will say boot these people out immediately, this would be morally right, however political suicide!
So will have to take firm assertive tough actions and get rid of these 'idiots (Niges word) post-election?
Can you assure us of total action, accountability and transparency post-election in Bucks? And who will lead this?
Mistamina Tom, thank you for a lively and only slightly heated discussion.

'ALL' parties have problem members, but the media is primarily facing UKIP at this moment, whilst misdemeanours still take place behind them, or they are choosing to mainly ignore them. Hey ho... that's what you get for being the new upstart.

I have no control over who get's ejected, but I do make my voice heard when I attend meetings, so maybe there is opportunity to influence. Frankly speaking, whilst I think UKIP are faster reacting than most parties at ejecting the unwanted individuals, there's still room for improvement. We're still evolving, but we have no intention of evolving into 'Just Another Political Party'. We want to be far more open, honest, inclusive, decisive, and take responsibility for our actions. We want to create a more democratic society at both local and national levels. (Local & National referenda)

Can I assure you that UKIP will get rid of these idiots after the EU Elections? No I can't, but I will certainly ensure that I make my feelings very well known, hopefully influencing the decision to act swiftly. We genuinely don't want these idiots in our party.

FYI - Known/discovered members with previous links to BNP & NF 'are' ejected immediately - It's written into the rules of UKIP membership.
[quote][p][bold]mistamina[/bold] wrote: Bloke Voter, thank you engaging, and not sprouting out mindless party lines. A 'small' numbers of members, candidates, spokesmen, sponsors and others in the UKIP that have either behave inappropriately, sworn, given the finger, are confused on racism or simply straight forward, no-nonsense racists. Then there are links to BNP, NF, etc. I cannot see UKIP doing anything about these people pre-Election. Since you respect religion, you will say boot these people out immediately, this would be morally right, however political suicide! So will have to take firm assertive tough actions and get rid of these 'idiots (Niges word) post-election? Can you assure us of total action, accountability and transparency post-election in Bucks? And who will lead this?[/p][/quote]Mistamina Tom, thank you for a lively and only slightly heated discussion. 'ALL' parties have problem members, but the media is primarily facing UKIP at this moment, whilst misdemeanours still take place behind them, or they are choosing to mainly ignore them. Hey ho... that's what you get for being the new upstart. I have no control over who get's ejected, but I do make my voice heard when I attend meetings, so maybe there is opportunity to influence. Frankly speaking, whilst I think UKIP are faster reacting than most parties at ejecting the unwanted individuals, there's still room for improvement. We're still evolving, but we have no intention of evolving into [italic] 'Just Another Political Party'. [/italic] We want to be far more open, honest, inclusive, decisive, and take responsibility for our actions. We want to create a more democratic society at both local and national levels. (Local & National referenda) Can I assure you that UKIP will get rid of these idiots after the EU Elections? No I can't, but I will certainly ensure that I make my feelings very well known, hopefully influencing the decision to act swiftly. We genuinely don't want these idiots in our party. FYI - Known/discovered members with previous links to BNP & NF 'are' ejected immediately - It's written into the rules of UKIP membership. Average Bloke
  • Score: 5

12:57pm Mon 19 May 14

tom.marlow2 says...

I look forward to discussing policies, when UKIP actually tells us what they are

So far we just have to go by what mr voter/bloke thinks they might be :-)

Mr Farage doesn't seem to be very forthcoming either
I look forward to discussing policies, when UKIP actually tells us what they are So far we just have to go by what mr voter/bloke thinks they might be :-) Mr Farage doesn't seem to be very forthcoming either tom.marlow2
  • Score: 0

5:57pm Mon 19 May 14

Average Bloke says...

Sorry to extend this debate further, but the Government in Brussels is about to virtually embrace paedophilia by lowering the age of consent from 16 to 13 years. Will this revised law be thrust upon the UK one wonders?

http://worldnewsdail
yreport.com/belgium-
to-lower-age-of-cons
ent-to-13/
Sorry to extend this debate further, but the Government in Brussels is about to virtually embrace paedophilia by lowering the age of consent from 16 to 13 years. Will this revised law be thrust upon the UK one wonders? http://worldnewsdail yreport.com/belgium- to-lower-age-of-cons ent-to-13/ Average Bloke
  • Score: 2

10:17pm Mon 19 May 14

J B Blackett says...

When my brother and I were young we used to hate brussels sprouts - but Mum said - 'Eat them up or you get any pudding' . Which used to make us hate them even more.
.
Now we are grown up and not as narrow-minded in our tastes , we now not just tolerate brussels sprouts but actually welcome them in our meals ( in moderation that is). They are allegedly very good for you
.
But we still don't like the sight or sound of Brussels politicians (of any description) - possibly never will. And we would never attempt to digest them or their words as they are like all politicians (and their words) poisonous and bad for everybody's health.
.
But perhaps that's just my brother and me.
When my brother and I were young we used to hate brussels sprouts - but Mum said - 'Eat them up or you get any pudding' . Which used to make us hate them even more. . Now we are grown up and not as narrow-minded in our tastes , we now not just tolerate brussels sprouts but actually welcome them in our meals ( in moderation that is). They are allegedly very good for you . But we still don't like the sight or sound of Brussels politicians (of any description) - possibly never will. And we would never attempt to digest them or their words as they are like all politicians (and their words) poisonous and bad for everybody's health. . But perhaps that's just my brother and me. J B Blackett
  • Score: 6

10:50pm Mon 19 May 14

tom.marlow2 says...

Average Bloke wrote:
Sorry to extend this debate further, but the Government in Brussels is about to virtually embrace paedophilia by lowering the age of consent from 16 to 13 years. Will this revised law be thrust upon the UK one wonders?

http://worldnewsdail

yreport.com/belgium-

to-lower-age-of-cons

ent-to-13/
since when has the Belgian government had any influence over UK law?

Come on Mr B, you know as well as I do that this is nothing to do with EU law so why bring it up in this context? Its exactly this sort of dissembling that damages the credibility of UKIP as a serious party. Where are the 46 million Romanians?
[quote][p][bold]Average Bloke[/bold] wrote: Sorry to extend this debate further, but the Government in Brussels is about to virtually embrace paedophilia by lowering the age of consent from 16 to 13 years. Will this revised law be thrust upon the UK one wonders? http://worldnewsdail yreport.com/belgium- to-lower-age-of-cons ent-to-13/[/p][/quote]since when has the Belgian government had any influence over UK law? Come on Mr B, you know as well as I do that this is nothing to do with EU law so why bring it up in this context? Its exactly this sort of dissembling that damages the credibility of UKIP as a serious party. Where are the 46 million Romanians? tom.marlow2
  • Score: 3

3:38pm Tue 20 May 14

Ten Years Gone says...

Seeing as how I work for a European company which employs hundreds of people across several UK locations. Perhaps some of the UKIP supporters would like to tell me why I deserve to lose my job (which I would if we pulled out of the EU as my employer would relocate).
Seeing as how I work for a European company which employs hundreds of people across several UK locations. Perhaps some of the UKIP supporters would like to tell me why I deserve to lose my job (which I would if we pulled out of the EU as my employer would relocate). Ten Years Gone
  • Score: 0

3:56pm Tue 20 May 14

Average Bloke says...

Ten Years Gone wrote:
Seeing as how I work for a European company which employs hundreds of people across several UK locations. Perhaps some of the UKIP supporters would like to tell me why I deserve to lose my job (which I would if we pulled out of the EU as my employer would relocate).
You don't deserve to lose your job.
The first question is, why would your employer relocate?

UKIP supporters and many others, just want to return to the concept of the "Common Market", which was the original European agreement, established to allow free trade across Europe.

If the UK were to leave, trade would not cease in either direction.
[quote][p][bold]Ten Years Gone[/bold] wrote: Seeing as how I work for a European company which employs hundreds of people across several UK locations. Perhaps some of the UKIP supporters would like to tell me why I deserve to lose my job (which I would if we pulled out of the EU as my employer would relocate).[/p][/quote]You don't deserve to lose your job. The first question is, why would your employer relocate? UKIP supporters and many others, just want to return to the concept of the "Common Market", which was the original European agreement, established to allow free trade across Europe. If the UK were to leave, trade would not cease in either direction. Average Bloke
  • Score: 6

11:10pm Tue 20 May 14

Moonpanda says...

As Barack Obama said, "Change!".

Neither Labour or the Conservatives care about reducing immigration, they've both proved that.
As Barack Obama said, "Change!". Neither Labour or the Conservatives care about reducing immigration, they've both proved that. Moonpanda
  • Score: 1

9:53am Wed 21 May 14

tom.marlow2 says...

Moonpanda wrote:
As Barack Obama said, "Change!".

Neither Labour or the Conservatives care about reducing immigration, they've both proved that.
Probably because they don't read the Daily Mail
[quote][p][bold]Moonpanda[/bold] wrote: As Barack Obama said, "Change!". Neither Labour or the Conservatives care about reducing immigration, they've both proved that.[/p][/quote]Probably because they don't read the Daily Mail tom.marlow2
  • Score: 2

11:02am Wed 21 May 14

mistamina says...

tom.marlow2 wrote:
Average Bloke wrote:
Sorry to extend this debate further, but the Government in Brussels is about to virtually embrace paedophilia by lowering the age of consent from 16 to 13 years. Will this revised law be thrust upon the UK one wonders?

http://worldnewsdail


yreport.com/belgium-


to-lower-age-of-cons


ent-to-13/
since when has the Belgian government had any influence over UK law?

Come on Mr B, you know as well as I do that this is nothing to do with EU law so why bring it up in this context? Its exactly this sort of dissembling that damages the credibility of UKIP as a serious party. Where are the 46 million Romanians?
I agree with Tom. Bloke, this was a cheap shot, I did not expect this from you. In this conversation, we are genuinely trying to understand your reasons for seeking isolation. We are frightened of the consequences. This means we must continue to have respect for you and your submissions.
However this behavior may not be your fault. Your role model, your Nige does this on a daily basis.
[quote][p][bold]tom.marlow2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Average Bloke[/bold] wrote: Sorry to extend this debate further, but the Government in Brussels is about to virtually embrace paedophilia by lowering the age of consent from 16 to 13 years. Will this revised law be thrust upon the UK one wonders? http://worldnewsdail yreport.com/belgium- to-lower-age-of-cons ent-to-13/[/p][/quote]since when has the Belgian government had any influence over UK law? Come on Mr B, you know as well as I do that this is nothing to do with EU law so why bring it up in this context? Its exactly this sort of dissembling that damages the credibility of UKIP as a serious party. Where are the 46 million Romanians?[/p][/quote]I agree with Tom. Bloke, this was a cheap shot, I did not expect this from you. In this conversation, we are genuinely trying to understand your reasons for seeking isolation. We are frightened of the consequences. This means we must continue to have respect for you and your submissions. However this behavior may not be your fault. Your role model, your Nige does this on a daily basis. mistamina
  • Score: -1

11:08am Wed 21 May 14

Average Bloke says...

OK Tom & misdamina, I apologise for linking what I consider to be a sordid and despicable act by the Belgian government, with the politics of the EU. Maybe it was a cheap shot.
Sorry.
OK Tom & misdamina, I apologise for linking what I consider to be a sordid and despicable act by the Belgian government, with the politics of the EU. Maybe it was a cheap shot. Sorry. Average Bloke
  • Score: 3

11:10am Wed 21 May 14

Average Bloke says...

BTW, what are your opinions of the Belgian Government proposal to reduce the legal age of consent to 13 years?
BTW, what are your opinions of the Belgian Government proposal to reduce the legal age of consent to 13 years? Average Bloke
  • Score: 2

11:11am Wed 21 May 14

mistamina says...

Average Bloke wrote:
mistamina wrote:
Bloke Voter, thank you engaging, and not sprouting out mindless party lines.
A 'small' numbers of members, candidates, spokesmen, sponsors and others in the UKIP that have either behave inappropriately, sworn, given the finger, are confused on racism or simply straight forward, no-nonsense racists. Then there are links to BNP, NF, etc.
I cannot see UKIP doing anything about these people pre-Election. Since you respect religion, you will say boot these people out immediately, this would be morally right, however political suicide!
So will have to take firm assertive tough actions and get rid of these 'idiots (Niges word) post-election?
Can you assure us of total action, accountability and transparency post-election in Bucks? And who will lead this?
Mistamina Tom, thank you for a lively and only slightly heated discussion.

'ALL' parties have problem members, but the media is primarily facing UKIP at this moment, whilst misdemeanours still take place behind them, or they are choosing to mainly ignore them. Hey ho... that's what you get for being the new upstart.

I have no control over who get's ejected, but I do make my voice heard when I attend meetings, so maybe there is opportunity to influence. Frankly speaking, whilst I think UKIP are faster reacting than most parties at ejecting the unwanted individuals, there's still room for improvement. We're still evolving, but we have no intention of evolving into 'Just Another Political Party'. We want to be far more open, honest, inclusive, decisive, and take responsibility for our actions. We want to create a more democratic society at both local and national levels. (Local & National referenda)

Can I assure you that UKIP will get rid of these idiots after the EU Elections? No I can't, but I will certainly ensure that I make my feelings very well known, hopefully influencing the decision to act swiftly. We genuinely don't want these idiots in our party.

FYI - Known/discovered members with previous links to BNP & NF 'are' ejected immediately - It's written into the rules of UKIP membership.
Bloke, i accept you are genuine about influencing your party to act swiftly to get rid of the idiots, racists, BNP&NF affiliates, expenses cheats, finger pointers, zealots, hate-mongers, religious bigots, homophones, etc, etc.

However, in this conversation, we ask for accountability at all tiomes. so please tell us who the leader of BucksUKIP is please (i do not now your local leader)?
Does he promise to act swiftly as well?
[quote][p][bold]Average Bloke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mistamina[/bold] wrote: Bloke Voter, thank you engaging, and not sprouting out mindless party lines. A 'small' numbers of members, candidates, spokesmen, sponsors and others in the UKIP that have either behave inappropriately, sworn, given the finger, are confused on racism or simply straight forward, no-nonsense racists. Then there are links to BNP, NF, etc. I cannot see UKIP doing anything about these people pre-Election. Since you respect religion, you will say boot these people out immediately, this would be morally right, however political suicide! So will have to take firm assertive tough actions and get rid of these 'idiots (Niges word) post-election? Can you assure us of total action, accountability and transparency post-election in Bucks? And who will lead this?[/p][/quote]Mistamina Tom, thank you for a lively and only slightly heated discussion. 'ALL' parties have problem members, but the media is primarily facing UKIP at this moment, whilst misdemeanours still take place behind them, or they are choosing to mainly ignore them. Hey ho... that's what you get for being the new upstart. I have no control over who get's ejected, but I do make my voice heard when I attend meetings, so maybe there is opportunity to influence. Frankly speaking, whilst I think UKIP are faster reacting than most parties at ejecting the unwanted individuals, there's still room for improvement. We're still evolving, but we have no intention of evolving into [italic] 'Just Another Political Party'. [/italic] We want to be far more open, honest, inclusive, decisive, and take responsibility for our actions. We want to create a more democratic society at both local and national levels. (Local & National referenda) Can I assure you that UKIP will get rid of these idiots after the EU Elections? No I can't, but I will certainly ensure that I make my feelings very well known, hopefully influencing the decision to act swiftly. We genuinely don't want these idiots in our party. FYI - Known/discovered members with previous links to BNP & NF 'are' ejected immediately - It's written into the rules of UKIP membership.[/p][/quote]Bloke, i accept you are genuine about influencing your party to act swiftly to get rid of the idiots, racists, BNP&NF affiliates, expenses cheats, finger pointers, zealots, hate-mongers, religious bigots, homophones, etc, etc. However, in this conversation, we ask for accountability at all tiomes. so please tell us who the leader of BucksUKIP is please (i do not now your local leader)? Does he promise to act swiftly as well? mistamina
  • Score: 1

11:13am Wed 21 May 14

mistamina says...

Average Bloke wrote:
OK Tom & misdamina, I apologise for linking what I consider to be a sordid and despicable act by the Belgian government, with the politics of the EU. Maybe it was a cheap shot.
Sorry.
Gracious.
[quote][p][bold]Average Bloke[/bold] wrote: OK Tom & misdamina, I apologise for linking what I consider to be a sordid and despicable act by the Belgian government, with the politics of the EU. Maybe it was a cheap shot. Sorry.[/p][/quote]Gracious. mistamina
  • Score: 3

11:23am Wed 21 May 14

Average Bloke says...

mistamina wrote:
Bloke, i accept you are genuine about influencing your party to act swiftly to get rid of the idiots, racists, BNP&NF affiliates, expenses cheats, finger pointers, zealots, hate-mongers, religious bigots, homophones, etc, etc.

However, in this conversation, we ask for accountability at all tiomes. so please tell us who the leader of BucksUKIP is please (i do not now your local leader)?
Does he promise to act swiftly as well?
As far as I am aware, Chris Adams is the Bucks UKIP leader, whilst David Meacock is the Wycombe candidate.
[quote][bold] mistamina [/bold] wrote: Bloke, i accept you are genuine about influencing your party to act swiftly to get rid of the idiots, racists, BNP&NF affiliates, expenses cheats, finger pointers, zealots, hate-mongers, religious bigots, homophones, etc, etc. However, in this conversation, we ask for accountability at all tiomes. so please tell us who the leader of BucksUKIP is please (i do not now your local leader)? Does he promise to act swiftly as well? [/quote] As far as I am aware, Chris Adams is the Bucks UKIP leader, whilst David Meacock is the Wycombe candidate. Average Bloke
  • Score: 3

3:04pm Wed 21 May 14

philbo says...

Average Bloke wrote:
BTW, what are your opinions of the Belgian Government proposal to reduce the legal age of consent to 13 years?
If you had read the article you linked to, you'll find that it's not a Belgian Government proposal: it's a bill put forward by an opposition member. Nothing to suggest there's any chance of it becoming law in Belgium let alone affecting anyone else in Europe.
I'm a bit nonplussed as to why you thought it was relevant to post at all.
[quote][p][bold]Average Bloke[/bold] wrote: BTW, what are your opinions of the Belgian Government proposal to reduce the legal age of consent to 13 years?[/p][/quote]If you had read the article you linked to, you'll find that it's not a Belgian Government proposal: it's a bill put forward by an opposition member. Nothing to suggest there's any chance of it becoming law in Belgium let alone affecting anyone else in Europe. I'm a bit nonplussed as to why you thought it was relevant to post at all. philbo
  • Score: 1

4:01pm Wed 21 May 14

Moonpanda says...

tom.marlow2 wrote:
Moonpanda wrote:
As Barack Obama said, "Change!".

Neither Labour or the Conservatives care about reducing immigration, they've both proved that.
Probably because they don't read the Daily Mail
Who needs to read the Daily Mail.

Walk around one of many town centers and you'll immediately see this country has undergone rapid transition the like has never been seen in history. At least on people who have not been conquered by a foreign force.

We are lucky to have a unique European civilization, this is something we have to guard in order to keep it. We know the saying, "you don't know what you had till its gone." You might want to think quite seriously about that.
[quote][p][bold]tom.marlow2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Moonpanda[/bold] wrote: As Barack Obama said, "Change!". Neither Labour or the Conservatives care about reducing immigration, they've both proved that.[/p][/quote]Probably because they don't read the Daily Mail[/p][/quote]Who needs to read the Daily Mail. Walk around one of many town centers and you'll immediately see this country has undergone rapid transition the like has never been seen in history. At least on people who have not been conquered by a foreign force. We are lucky to have a unique European civilization, this is something we have to guard in order to keep it. We know the saying, "you don't know what you had till its gone." You might want to think quite seriously about that. Moonpanda
  • Score: 5

4:01pm Wed 21 May 14

Moonpanda says...

tom.marlow2 wrote:
Moonpanda wrote:
As Barack Obama said, "Change!".

Neither Labour or the Conservatives care about reducing immigration, they've both proved that.
Probably because they don't read the Daily Mail
Who needs to read the Daily Mail.

Walk around one of many town centers and you'll immediately see this country has undergone rapid transition the like has never been seen in history. At least on people who have not been conquered by a foreign force.

We are lucky to have a unique European civilization, this is something we have to guard in order to keep it. We know the saying, "you don't know what you had till its gone." You might want to think quite seriously about that.
[quote][p][bold]tom.marlow2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Moonpanda[/bold] wrote: As Barack Obama said, "Change!". Neither Labour or the Conservatives care about reducing immigration, they've both proved that.[/p][/quote]Probably because they don't read the Daily Mail[/p][/quote]Who needs to read the Daily Mail. Walk around one of many town centers and you'll immediately see this country has undergone rapid transition the like has never been seen in history. At least on people who have not been conquered by a foreign force. We are lucky to have a unique European civilization, this is something we have to guard in order to keep it. We know the saying, "you don't know what you had till its gone." You might want to think quite seriously about that. Moonpanda
  • Score: 5

6:15pm Wed 21 May 14

tom.marlow2 says...

Moonpanda wrote:
tom.marlow2 wrote:
Moonpanda wrote:
As Barack Obama said, "Change!".

Neither Labour or the Conservatives care about reducing immigration, they've both proved that.
Probably because they don't read the Daily Mail
Who needs to read the Daily Mail.

Walk around one of many town centers and you'll immediately see this country has undergone rapid transition the like has never been seen in history. At least on people who have not been conquered by a foreign force.

We are lucky to have a unique European civilization, this is something we have to guard in order to keep it. We know the saying, "you don't know what you had till its gone." You might want to think quite seriously about that.
As far as I am aware most of the UKIP campaigning about immigration has been about immigration from within Europe - 46 million Romanians etc

The threat to our "unique european civilisation" is pretty well covered by both labour and the conservatives
[quote][p][bold]Moonpanda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tom.marlow2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Moonpanda[/bold] wrote: As Barack Obama said, "Change!". Neither Labour or the Conservatives care about reducing immigration, they've both proved that.[/p][/quote]Probably because they don't read the Daily Mail[/p][/quote]Who needs to read the Daily Mail. Walk around one of many town centers and you'll immediately see this country has undergone rapid transition the like has never been seen in history. At least on people who have not been conquered by a foreign force. We are lucky to have a unique European civilization, this is something we have to guard in order to keep it. We know the saying, "you don't know what you had till its gone." You might want to think quite seriously about that.[/p][/quote]As far as I am aware most of the UKIP campaigning about immigration has been about immigration from within Europe - 46 million Romanians etc The threat to our "unique european civilisation" is pretty well covered by both labour and the conservatives tom.marlow2
  • Score: -3

4:21pm Thu 22 May 14

mistamina says...

tom.marlow2 wrote:
Moonpanda wrote:
As Barack Obama said, "Change!".

Neither Labour or the Conservatives care about reducing immigration, they've both proved that.
Probably because they don't read the Daily Mail
Had to laugh!
[quote][p][bold]tom.marlow2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Moonpanda[/bold] wrote: As Barack Obama said, "Change!". Neither Labour or the Conservatives care about reducing immigration, they've both proved that.[/p][/quote]Probably because they don't read the Daily Mail[/p][/quote]Had to laugh! mistamina
  • Score: 0

4:32pm Thu 22 May 14

mistamina says...

philbo wrote:
Average Bloke wrote:
BTW, what are your opinions of the Belgian Government proposal to reduce the legal age of consent to 13 years?
If you had read the article you linked to, you'll find that it's not a Belgian Government proposal: it's a bill put forward by an opposition member. Nothing to suggest there's any chance of it becoming law in Belgium let alone affecting anyone else in Europe.
I'm a bit nonplussed as to why you thought it was relevant to post at all.
To be scrupulously fair. Bloke he has had the grace to concede point already.
A reason some of us are conducting a conversation with him.

Cannot say the same about other UKIP supporters, who appear to be in a spin of self-denial/misinfor
mation/need to blame foreigners/laziness and probably frightened by their own immoral thoughts, etc.
[quote][p][bold]philbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Average Bloke[/bold] wrote: BTW, what are your opinions of the Belgian Government proposal to reduce the legal age of consent to 13 years?[/p][/quote]If you had read the article you linked to, you'll find that it's not a Belgian Government proposal: it's a bill put forward by an opposition member. Nothing to suggest there's any chance of it becoming law in Belgium let alone affecting anyone else in Europe. I'm a bit nonplussed as to why you thought it was relevant to post at all.[/p][/quote]To be scrupulously fair. Bloke he has had the grace to concede point already. A reason some of us are conducting a conversation with him. Cannot say the same about other UKIP supporters, who appear to be in a spin of self-denial/misinfor mation/need to blame foreigners/laziness and probably frightened by their own immoral thoughts, etc. mistamina
  • Score: -5

4:44pm Thu 22 May 14

mistamina says...

Ten Years Gone wrote:
Seeing as how I work for a European company which employs hundreds of people across several UK locations. Perhaps some of the UKIP supporters would like to tell me why I deserve to lose my job (which I would if we pulled out of the EU as my employer would relocate).
If UKIP get in and pulls us out of Europe. Your company will move to Rumania, Bulgaria, somewhere cheaper/ Sorry Ten Years Gone will be kippered, hung, thrown out.
No one likes a xenophobe, especially Europe, they have had enough of it..

And do not rely on benefits. they will be cut severely. You see, about 1 million working Europeans will be thrown out of England, one million retired and non-working English people will be sent back to England. All will need benefits.
No governmant will be able to afford this. Recession, depression, riots, you name it.
Good news is you only be a tiny statistic, what Cuddly Nige says is 'a price worth paying'.
[quote][p][bold]Ten Years Gone[/bold] wrote: Seeing as how I work for a European company which employs hundreds of people across several UK locations. Perhaps some of the UKIP supporters would like to tell me why I deserve to lose my job (which I would if we pulled out of the EU as my employer would relocate).[/p][/quote]If UKIP get in and pulls us out of Europe. Your company will move to Rumania, Bulgaria, somewhere cheaper/ Sorry Ten Years Gone will be kippered, hung, thrown out. No one likes a xenophobe, especially Europe, they have had enough of it.. And do not rely on benefits. they will be cut severely. You see, about 1 million working Europeans will be thrown out of England, one million retired and non-working English people will be sent back to England. All will need benefits. No governmant will be able to afford this. Recession, depression, riots, you name it. Good news is you only be a tiny statistic, what Cuddly Nige says is 'a price worth paying'. mistamina
  • Score: -3

5:07pm Thu 22 May 14

mistamina says...

tom.marlow2 wrote:
Moonpanda wrote:
tom.marlow2 wrote:
Moonpanda wrote:
As Barack Obama said, "Change!".

Neither Labour or the Conservatives care about reducing immigration, they've both proved that.
Probably because they don't read the Daily Mail
Who needs to read the Daily Mail.

Walk around one of many town centers and you'll immediately see this country has undergone rapid transition the like has never been seen in history. At least on people who have not been conquered by a foreign force.

We are lucky to have a unique European civilization, this is something we have to guard in order to keep it. We know the saying, "you don't know what you had till its gone." You might want to think quite seriously about that.
As far as I am aware most of the UKIP campaigning about immigration has been about immigration from within Europe - 46 million Romanians etc

The threat to our "unique european civilisation" is pretty well covered by both labour and the conservatives
Good point! Anyone seen my 46 million Romanians and/or Bulgarians??
Any one?? Where dem foreigners gon?

Lost Britain, ah yes. I have seen pictures of Southall and Hounslow High Streets of 30 years ago. Sigh! They were the proverbial one horse streets, kids with colds, badly dressed and pre-mature ageing folfs.
Now one High Street turns over £1m a day; the other turns over £2m a day. Both towns supply labour and managers which has enable the rapid expansion of Heathrow Airport, and even more importantly the rest of the support and infrastructure surrounding Heathrow creating the biggest employment hot-spot in the UK.
Who needs all this money, turnover, wealth creation, tax revenue, benefits, nice shiney cars, ease and comfort?
Lets throw it all away, heck as Cuddly Nige says is 'its a price worth paying'.
Bring on the jolly old stone age.
[quote][p][bold]tom.marlow2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Moonpanda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tom.marlow2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Moonpanda[/bold] wrote: As Barack Obama said, "Change!". Neither Labour or the Conservatives care about reducing immigration, they've both proved that.[/p][/quote]Probably because they don't read the Daily Mail[/p][/quote]Who needs to read the Daily Mail. Walk around one of many town centers and you'll immediately see this country has undergone rapid transition the like has never been seen in history. At least on people who have not been conquered by a foreign force. We are lucky to have a unique European civilization, this is something we have to guard in order to keep it. We know the saying, "you don't know what you had till its gone." You might want to think quite seriously about that.[/p][/quote]As far as I am aware most of the UKIP campaigning about immigration has been about immigration from within Europe - 46 million Romanians etc The threat to our "unique european civilisation" is pretty well covered by both labour and the conservatives[/p][/quote]Good point! Anyone seen my 46 million Romanians and/or Bulgarians?? Any one?? Where dem foreigners gon? Lost Britain, ah yes. I have seen pictures of Southall and Hounslow High Streets of 30 years ago. Sigh! They were the proverbial one horse streets, kids with colds, badly dressed and pre-mature ageing folfs. Now one High Street turns over £1m a day; the other turns over £2m a day. Both towns supply labour and managers which has enable the rapid expansion of Heathrow Airport, and even more importantly the rest of the support and infrastructure surrounding Heathrow creating the biggest employment hot-spot in the UK. Who needs all this money, turnover, wealth creation, tax revenue, benefits, nice shiney cars, ease and comfort? Lets throw it all away, heck as Cuddly Nige says is 'its a price worth paying'. Bring on the jolly old stone age. mistamina
  • Score: -4

10:03am Fri 23 May 14

philbo says...

mistamina wrote:
philbo wrote:
Average Bloke wrote:
BTW, what are your opinions of the Belgian Government proposal to reduce the legal age of consent to 13 years?
If you had read the article you linked to, you'll find that it's not a Belgian Government proposal: it's a bill put forward by an opposition member. Nothing to suggest there's any chance of it becoming law in Belgium let alone affecting anyone else in Europe.
I'm a bit nonplussed as to why you thought it was relevant to post at all.
To be scrupulously fair. Bloke he has had the grace to concede point already.
A reason some of us are conducting a conversation with him.

Cannot say the same about other UKIP supporters, who appear to be in a spin of self-denial/misinfor

mation/need to blame foreigners/laziness and probably frightened by their own immoral thoughts, etc.
I am being fair to him: he posted then repeated that the thought the Belgian government was trying to reduce the age of consent there - he linked to an article he probably hadn't read further than the headline, which includes a wonderfully creepy grandfather/granddau
ghter (who's clearly well below the 13 they're talking about) photo - the way that article has been written (especially when considering the headline and URL) would make me distrust everything else on the website: it is a truly abysmal bit of reportage.

Yet Bloke managed to misinterpret the article twice: initially implying that it was something the EU is going to extend to us; when that was comprehensively shot down, he went on to repeat that the Belgian government is behind this. This is absolutely typical of UKIP supporters: willing to believe any old rubbish about European countries because it helps them self-affirm they must be right about how dreadful the EU is - however, almost every anti-EU story, and large quanitities of Farage's anti-EU rhetoric simply doesn't stand up to any serious scrutiny whatsoever.

I think it's a huge shame that there have been a lot of lies told about UKIP in the past few weeks, told for much the same sort of reason: there are people who want to believe the worst, and spread any old rumour as though it were fact. It's a shame because it helps their supporters ignore some of the extremely distasteful truths.
[quote][p][bold]mistamina[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]philbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Average Bloke[/bold] wrote: BTW, what are your opinions of the Belgian Government proposal to reduce the legal age of consent to 13 years?[/p][/quote]If you had read the article you linked to, you'll find that it's not a Belgian Government proposal: it's a bill put forward by an opposition member. Nothing to suggest there's any chance of it becoming law in Belgium let alone affecting anyone else in Europe. I'm a bit nonplussed as to why you thought it was relevant to post at all.[/p][/quote]To be scrupulously fair. Bloke he has had the grace to concede point already. A reason some of us are conducting a conversation with him. Cannot say the same about other UKIP supporters, who appear to be in a spin of self-denial/misinfor mation/need to blame foreigners/laziness and probably frightened by their own immoral thoughts, etc.[/p][/quote]I am being fair to him: he posted then repeated that the thought the Belgian government was trying to reduce the age of consent there - he linked to an article he probably hadn't read further than the headline, which includes a wonderfully creepy grandfather/granddau ghter (who's clearly well below the 13 they're talking about) photo - the way that article has been written (especially when considering the headline and URL) would make me distrust everything else on the website: it is a truly abysmal bit of reportage. Yet Bloke managed to misinterpret the article twice: initially implying that it was something the EU is going to extend to us; when that was comprehensively shot down, he went on to repeat that the Belgian government is behind this. This is absolutely typical of UKIP supporters: willing to believe any old rubbish about European countries because it helps them self-affirm they must be right about how dreadful the EU is - however, almost every anti-EU story, and large quanitities of Farage's anti-EU rhetoric simply doesn't stand up to any serious scrutiny whatsoever. I think it's a huge shame that there have been a lot of lies told about UKIP in the past few weeks, told for much the same sort of reason: there are people who want to believe the worst, and spread any old rumour as though it were fact. It's a shame because it helps their supporters ignore some of the extremely distasteful truths. philbo
  • Score: 0

2:37pm Fri 23 May 14

mistamina says...

philbo wrote:
mistamina wrote:
philbo wrote:
Average Bloke wrote:
BTW, what are your opinions of the Belgian Government proposal to reduce the legal age of consent to 13 years?
If you had read the article you linked to, you'll find that it's not a Belgian Government proposal: it's a bill put forward by an opposition member. Nothing to suggest there's any chance of it becoming law in Belgium let alone affecting anyone else in Europe.
I'm a bit nonplussed as to why you thought it was relevant to post at all.
To be scrupulously fair. Bloke he has had the grace to concede point already.
A reason some of us are conducting a conversation with him.

Cannot say the same about other UKIP supporters, who appear to be in a spin of self-denial/misinfor


mation/need to blame foreigners/laziness and probably frightened by their own immoral thoughts, etc.
I am being fair to him: he posted then repeated that the thought the Belgian government was trying to reduce the age of consent there - he linked to an article he probably hadn't read further than the headline, which includes a wonderfully creepy grandfather/granddau

ghter (who's clearly well below the 13 they're talking about) photo - the way that article has been written (especially when considering the headline and URL) would make me distrust everything else on the website: it is a truly abysmal bit of reportage.

Yet Bloke managed to misinterpret the article twice: initially implying that it was something the EU is going to extend to us; when that was comprehensively shot down, he went on to repeat that the Belgian government is behind this. This is absolutely typical of UKIP supporters: willing to believe any old rubbish about European countries because it helps them self-affirm they must be right about how dreadful the EU is - however, almost every anti-EU story, and large quanitities of Farage's anti-EU rhetoric simply doesn't stand up to any serious scrutiny whatsoever.

I think it's a huge shame that there have been a lot of lies told about UKIP in the past few weeks, told for much the same sort of reason: there are people who want to believe the worst, and spread any old rumour as though it were fact. It's a shame because it helps their supporters ignore some of the extremely distasteful truths.
Agree, they are native. But fully capable of slaying the Tory Party, according to today's evidence.
Zeal of the newly converted I suppose.
They are a mile away from self-scrutiny, accountability, transparency and evidence based belief. It will be a rude awaking when they get to that stage.
.
I am interested. which bits of anti-UKIP rhetoric were lies or innuendos?
[quote][p][bold]philbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mistamina[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]philbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Average Bloke[/bold] wrote: BTW, what are your opinions of the Belgian Government proposal to reduce the legal age of consent to 13 years?[/p][/quote]If you had read the article you linked to, you'll find that it's not a Belgian Government proposal: it's a bill put forward by an opposition member. Nothing to suggest there's any chance of it becoming law in Belgium let alone affecting anyone else in Europe. I'm a bit nonplussed as to why you thought it was relevant to post at all.[/p][/quote]To be scrupulously fair. Bloke he has had the grace to concede point already. A reason some of us are conducting a conversation with him. Cannot say the same about other UKIP supporters, who appear to be in a spin of self-denial/misinfor mation/need to blame foreigners/laziness and probably frightened by their own immoral thoughts, etc.[/p][/quote]I am being fair to him: he posted then repeated that the thought the Belgian government was trying to reduce the age of consent there - he linked to an article he probably hadn't read further than the headline, which includes a wonderfully creepy grandfather/granddau ghter (who's clearly well below the 13 they're talking about) photo - the way that article has been written (especially when considering the headline and URL) would make me distrust everything else on the website: it is a truly abysmal bit of reportage. Yet Bloke managed to misinterpret the article twice: initially implying that it was something the EU is going to extend to us; when that was comprehensively shot down, he went on to repeat that the Belgian government is behind this. This is absolutely typical of UKIP supporters: willing to believe any old rubbish about European countries because it helps them self-affirm they must be right about how dreadful the EU is - however, almost every anti-EU story, and large quanitities of Farage's anti-EU rhetoric simply doesn't stand up to any serious scrutiny whatsoever. I think it's a huge shame that there have been a lot of lies told about UKIP in the past few weeks, told for much the same sort of reason: there are people who want to believe the worst, and spread any old rumour as though it were fact. It's a shame because it helps their supporters ignore some of the extremely distasteful truths.[/p][/quote]Agree, they are native. But fully capable of slaying the Tory Party, according to today's evidence. Zeal of the newly converted I suppose. They are a mile away from self-scrutiny, accountability, transparency and evidence based belief. It will be a rude awaking when they get to that stage. . I am interested. which bits of anti-UKIP rhetoric were lies or innuendos? mistamina
  • Score: 0

2:38pm Fri 23 May 14

mistamina says...

philbo wrote:
mistamina wrote:
philbo wrote:
Average Bloke wrote:
BTW, what are your opinions of the Belgian Government proposal to reduce the legal age of consent to 13 years?
If you had read the article you linked to, you'll find that it's not a Belgian Government proposal: it's a bill put forward by an opposition member. Nothing to suggest there's any chance of it becoming law in Belgium let alone affecting anyone else in Europe.
I'm a bit nonplussed as to why you thought it was relevant to post at all.
To be scrupulously fair. Bloke he has had the grace to concede point already.
A reason some of us are conducting a conversation with him.

Cannot say the same about other UKIP supporters, who appear to be in a spin of self-denial/misinfor


mation/need to blame foreigners/laziness and probably frightened by their own immoral thoughts, etc.
I am being fair to him: he posted then repeated that the thought the Belgian government was trying to reduce the age of consent there - he linked to an article he probably hadn't read further than the headline, which includes a wonderfully creepy grandfather/granddau

ghter (who's clearly well below the 13 they're talking about) photo - the way that article has been written (especially when considering the headline and URL) would make me distrust everything else on the website: it is a truly abysmal bit of reportage.

Yet Bloke managed to misinterpret the article twice: initially implying that it was something the EU is going to extend to us; when that was comprehensively shot down, he went on to repeat that the Belgian government is behind this. This is absolutely typical of UKIP supporters: willing to believe any old rubbish about European countries because it helps them self-affirm they must be right about how dreadful the EU is - however, almost every anti-EU story, and large quanitities of Farage's anti-EU rhetoric simply doesn't stand up to any serious scrutiny whatsoever.

I think it's a huge shame that there have been a lot of lies told about UKIP in the past few weeks, told for much the same sort of reason: there are people who want to believe the worst, and spread any old rumour as though it were fact. It's a shame because it helps their supporters ignore some of the extremely distasteful truths.
Agree, they are native. But fully capable of slaying the Tory Party, according to today's evidence.
Zeal of the newly converted I suppose.
They are a mile away from self-scrutiny, accountability, transparency and evidence based belief. It will be a rude awaking when they get to that stage.
.
I am interested. which bits of anti-UKIP rhetoric were lies or innuendos?
[quote][p][bold]philbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mistamina[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]philbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Average Bloke[/bold] wrote: BTW, what are your opinions of the Belgian Government proposal to reduce the legal age of consent to 13 years?[/p][/quote]If you had read the article you linked to, you'll find that it's not a Belgian Government proposal: it's a bill put forward by an opposition member. Nothing to suggest there's any chance of it becoming law in Belgium let alone affecting anyone else in Europe. I'm a bit nonplussed as to why you thought it was relevant to post at all.[/p][/quote]To be scrupulously fair. Bloke he has had the grace to concede point already. A reason some of us are conducting a conversation with him. Cannot say the same about other UKIP supporters, who appear to be in a spin of self-denial/misinfor mation/need to blame foreigners/laziness and probably frightened by their own immoral thoughts, etc.[/p][/quote]I am being fair to him: he posted then repeated that the thought the Belgian government was trying to reduce the age of consent there - he linked to an article he probably hadn't read further than the headline, which includes a wonderfully creepy grandfather/granddau ghter (who's clearly well below the 13 they're talking about) photo - the way that article has been written (especially when considering the headline and URL) would make me distrust everything else on the website: it is a truly abysmal bit of reportage. Yet Bloke managed to misinterpret the article twice: initially implying that it was something the EU is going to extend to us; when that was comprehensively shot down, he went on to repeat that the Belgian government is behind this. This is absolutely typical of UKIP supporters: willing to believe any old rubbish about European countries because it helps them self-affirm they must be right about how dreadful the EU is - however, almost every anti-EU story, and large quanitities of Farage's anti-EU rhetoric simply doesn't stand up to any serious scrutiny whatsoever. I think it's a huge shame that there have been a lot of lies told about UKIP in the past few weeks, told for much the same sort of reason: there are people who want to believe the worst, and spread any old rumour as though it were fact. It's a shame because it helps their supporters ignore some of the extremely distasteful truths.[/p][/quote]Agree, they are native. But fully capable of slaying the Tory Party, according to today's evidence. Zeal of the newly converted I suppose. They are a mile away from self-scrutiny, accountability, transparency and evidence based belief. It will be a rude awaking when they get to that stage. . I am interested. which bits of anti-UKIP rhetoric were lies or innuendos? mistamina
  • Score: 1

3:42pm Fri 23 May 14

philbo says...

I assume you mean "naive" rather than "native" :-)

I think "slaying" the Tory party might be a little premature

I wish we had a single political party which had some kind of evidence base for its belief: for as long as I can remember, policy has been decided and "evidence" selectively cherry-picked to fit, or simply invented.

Biggest anti-UKIP rhetoric which really doesn't hold up is the racism accusation: it's not that simple, and has got to the point where it can pretty much be shrugged off (which means that when there is real, overt racism to be faced, it's far harder to get people to take seriously); there were a load of claims doing the rounds on Facebook.which simply didn't seem credible, I checked a couple and could find nothing to back them up at all - things Farage is supposed to have said or done, various batshit crazy pronouncements from UKIP candidates/MEPs/coun
cillors (some ridiculous ones did turn out to be true, but some appeared to be compete invention); hyperbolic distortions of policy statements - that sort of thing.
I assume you mean "naive" rather than "native" :-) I think "slaying" the Tory party might be a little premature I wish we had a single political party which had some kind of evidence base for its belief: for as long as I can remember, policy has been decided and "evidence" selectively cherry-picked to fit, or simply invented. Biggest anti-UKIP rhetoric which really doesn't hold up is the racism accusation: it's not that simple, and has got to the point where it can pretty much be shrugged off (which means that when there is real, overt racism to be faced, it's far harder to get people to take seriously); there were a load of claims doing the rounds on Facebook.which simply didn't seem credible, I checked a couple and could find nothing to back them up at all - things Farage is supposed to have said or done, various batshit crazy pronouncements from UKIP candidates/MEPs/coun cillors (some ridiculous ones did turn out to be true, but some appeared to be compete invention); hyperbolic distortions of policy statements - that sort of thing. philbo
  • Score: 3

9:11am Tue 27 May 14

philbo says...

Hey, AVerageBloke - At the risk of sounding like a broken record, and I only do this because you repeated the question "BTW, what are your opinions of the Belgian Government proposal to reduce the legal age of consent to 13 years?" - have you noticed yet that it *isn't* the Belgian government, and the odds on it becoming law in Belgium are vanishingly small?
Hey, AVerageBloke - At the risk of sounding like a broken record, and I only do this because you repeated the question "BTW, what are your opinions of the Belgian Government proposal to reduce the legal age of consent to 13 years?" - have you noticed yet that it *isn't* the Belgian government, and the odds on it becoming law in Belgium are vanishingly small? philbo
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree