Discussion:
Latest in the Brexit/Tory Omnishambles
Add Reply
Stephen Thomas Cole
2018-01-22 09:56:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
You know things are bad for a Conservative government when even the fucking
Torygraph starts putting the boot in:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/01/21/seen-enough-know-theresa-may-cant-change-must-go/

I've also seen the Mail take an increasingly harder line on May recently,
it won't take many more of these kind of articles to embolden enough MPs to
take her down and trigger a leadership election, which'll almost certainly
precipitate a general election and, most likely, a Corbyn government! At
which point Labour can perfectly justifiably say that the Tories have made
such a bollocks of negotiations that there is no choice but to revoke
Article 50 and look at the whole thing again, kicking the Brexit can down
the road until enough old racists are in the ground to guarantee a second
referendum would have no chance of ending up Leave. Woo!
--
STC / M0TEY /
http://twitter.com/ukradioamateur
Brian Reay
2018-01-22 10:13:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
You know things are bad for a Conservative government when even the fucking
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/01/21/seen-enough-know-theresa-may-cant-change-must-go/
I've also seen the Mail take an increasingly harder line on May recently,
it won't take many more of these kind of articles to embolden enough MPs to
take her down and trigger a leadership election, which'll almost certainly
precipitate a general election and, most likely, a Corbyn government! At
which point Labour can perfectly justifiably say that the Tories have made
such a bollocks of negotiations that there is no choice but to revoke
Article 50 and look at the whole thing again, kicking the Brexit can down
the road until enough old racists are in the ground to guarantee a second
referendum would have no chance of ending up Leave. Woo!
Still dreaming I see Steve.

May's incompetence is nothing new, she has made a hash of everything she
has touched. The Tories just don't have the gumption to ditch her and
those like her.

Labour is no better- Corbyn is a joke, if he was given the elbow who is
going to step in? His left wing side kick? Diane Abbott?

The bottom line is, none of traditional parties have a serious contender.

As for Brexit, every doom and gloom prediction of your Remain chums has
fallen apart. Even the French are taking about a 'special deal' post
Brexit.

If you want to be part of the EU, move countries.

BTW, you do know that it hasn't been established Art. 50 can be
reversed. The Supreme Court view is it is not possible and decided a
case on that basis.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39291512

Yes, there is a lot of hot air from Remainers in that article but the
key part is the bit re the Supreme Court.
--
Suspect someone is claiming a benefit under false pretences? Incapacity
Benefit or Personal Independence Payment when they don't need it? They
are depriving those in real need!

https://www.gov.uk/report-benefit-fraud
Stephen Thomas Cole
2018-01-22 10:37:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
You know things are bad for a Conservative government when even the fucking
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/01/21/seen-enough-know-theresa-may-cant-change-must-go/
I've also seen the Mail take an increasingly harder line on May recently,
it won't take many more of these kind of articles to embolden enough MPs to
take her down and trigger a leadership election, which'll almost certainly
precipitate a general election and, most likely, a Corbyn government! At
which point Labour can perfectly justifiably say that the Tories have made
such a bollocks of negotiations that there is no choice but to revoke
Article 50 and look at the whole thing again, kicking the Brexit can down
the road until enough old racists are in the ground to guarantee a second
referendum would have no chance of ending up Leave. Woo!
Still dreaming I see Steve.
Just reporting the facts, OM!
Post by Brian Reay
May's incompetence is nothing new, she has made a hash of everything she
has touched. The Tories just don't have the gumption to ditch her and
those like her.
Labour is no better- Corbyn is a joke, if he was given the elbow who is
going to step in? His left wing side kick? Diane Abbott?
The bottom line is, none of traditional parties have a serious contender.
Emily Thornberry is very credible, although Laura Pidcock is looking likely
to steal her thunder. In a leadership contest between those two, I'd vote
Pidcock, she's proper Left.
Post by Brian Reay
As for Brexit, every doom and gloom prediction of your Remain chums has
fallen apart. Even the French are taking about a 'special deal' post
Brexit.
By which they mean a negotiated settlement on a trade deal, the same
"special" deal that every Third Country gets.
Post by Brian Reay
If you want to be part of the EU, move countries.
Why didn't you "move countries" at any point in the last four decades when
you didn't want to be part of the EU?
Post by Brian Reay
BTW, you do know that it hasn't been established Art. 50 can be
reversed. The Supreme Court view is it is not possible and decided a
case on that basis.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39291512
Yes, there is a lot of hot air from Remainers in that article but the
key part is the bit re the Supreme Court.
Brian, you really need to keep yourself up to speed on this matter, this
kind of easily-avoided clanger above just makes you look uninformed and
catastrophically weakens your arguments:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-minister-lord-callanan-apology-article-50-irreversible-supreme-court-ruling-david-davis-uk-a8065591.html

HTH. Additionally, the broad legal consensus is that it is unilaterally
revocable, and that opinion is shared by the architects of Article 50 and
also the EU itself.
--
STC / M0TEY /
http://twitter.com/ukradioamateur
Ian Jackson
2018-01-22 10:45:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
You know things are bad for a Conservative government when even the fucking
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/01/21/seen-enough-know-theresa
-may-cant-change-must-go/
I've also seen the Mail take an increasingly harder line on May recently,
it won't take many more of these kind of articles to embolden enough MPs to
take her down and trigger a leadership election, which'll almost certainly
precipitate a general election and, most likely, a Corbyn government! At
which point Labour can perfectly justifiably say that the Tories have made
such a bollocks of negotiations that there is no choice but to revoke
Article 50 and look at the whole thing again, kicking the Brexit can down
the road until enough old racists are in the ground to guarantee a second
referendum would have no chance of ending up Leave. Woo!
Still dreaming I see Steve.
May's incompetence is nothing new, she has made a hash of everything
she has touched. The Tories just don't have the gumption to ditch her
and those like her.
Labour is no better- Corbyn is a joke, if he was given the elbow who is
going to step in? His left wing side kick? Diane Abbott?
The bottom line is, none of traditional parties have a serious contender.
As for Brexit, every doom and gloom prediction of your Remain chums has
fallen apart. Even the French are taking about a 'special deal' post
Brexit.
If you want to be part of the EU, move countries.
BTW, you do know that it hasn't been established Art. 50 can be
reversed. The Supreme Court view is it is not possible and decided a
case on that basis.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39291512
Yes, there is a lot of hot air from Remainers in that article but the
key part is the bit re the Supreme Court.
Please don't start overtly discussing Brexit here. There are enough
nutters 'discussing' it in uk.legal and uk.politics.misc without
tempting them to join the nutters already in uk.r.a.
--
Ian
Roger Hayter
2018-01-22 10:47:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
You know things are bad for a Conservative government when even the fucking
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/01/21/seen-enough-know-theresa-
may-cant-change-must-go/
I've also seen the Mail take an increasingly harder line on May recently,
it won't take many more of these kind of articles to embolden enough MPs to
take her down and trigger a leadership election, which'll almost certainly
precipitate a general election and, most likely, a Corbyn government! At
which point Labour can perfectly justifiably say that the Tories have made
such a bollocks of negotiations that there is no choice but to revoke
Article 50 and look at the whole thing again, kicking the Brexit can down
the road until enough old racists are in the ground to guarantee a second
referendum would have no chance of ending up Leave. Woo!
Still dreaming I see Steve.
May's incompetence is nothing new, she has made a hash of everything she
has touched. The Tories just don't have the gumption to ditch her and
those like her.
Labour is no better- Corbyn is a joke, if he was given the elbow who is
going to step in? His left wing side kick? Diane Abbott?
The bottom line is, none of traditional parties have a serious contender.
As for Brexit, every doom and gloom prediction of your Remain chums has
fallen apart. Even the French are taking about a 'special deal' post
Brexit.
If you want to be part of the EU, move countries.
BTW, you do know that it hasn't been established Art. 50 can be
reversed. The Supreme Court view is it is not possible and decided a
case on that basis.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39291512
Yes, there is a lot of hot air from Remainers in that article but the
key part is the bit re the Supreme Court.
This is all a bit off-topic but, in the interests of truth, that article
says the Supreme Court has *not* ruled on the matter because it has not
been asked to. It made a ruling in which both parties argued that it
was not reversible; but the oourt merely accepted the idea for the
purposes of that case, as they are wont to do if neither party disputes
a legal position and it is at all credible, while explicity saying they
were not making a ruling on the reversibility of Article 50.

I have no opinion on the legal question myself, but we could always ask
to rejoin!
--
Roger Hayter
Brian Reay
2018-01-22 12:12:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roger Hayter
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
You know things are bad for a Conservative government when even the fucking
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/01/21/seen-enough-know-theresa-
may-cant-change-must-go/
I've also seen the Mail take an increasingly harder line on May recently,
it won't take many more of these kind of articles to embolden enough MPs to
take her down and trigger a leadership election, which'll almost certainly
precipitate a general election and, most likely, a Corbyn government! At
which point Labour can perfectly justifiably say that the Tories have made
such a bollocks of negotiations that there is no choice but to revoke
Article 50 and look at the whole thing again, kicking the Brexit can down
the road until enough old racists are in the ground to guarantee a second
referendum would have no chance of ending up Leave. Woo!
Still dreaming I see Steve.
May's incompetence is nothing new, she has made a hash of everything she
has touched. The Tories just don't have the gumption to ditch her and
those like her.
Labour is no better- Corbyn is a joke, if he was given the elbow who is
going to step in? His left wing side kick? Diane Abbott?
The bottom line is, none of traditional parties have a serious contender.
As for Brexit, every doom and gloom prediction of your Remain chums has
fallen apart. Even the French are taking about a 'special deal' post
Brexit.
If you want to be part of the EU, move countries.
BTW, you do know that it hasn't been established Art. 50 can be
reversed. The Supreme Court view is it is not possible and decided a
case on that basis.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39291512
Yes, there is a lot of hot air from Remainers in that article but the
key part is the bit re the Supreme Court.
This is all a bit off-topic but, in the interests of truth, that article
says the Supreme Court has *not* ruled on the matter because it has not
been asked to. It made a ruling in which both parties argued that it
was not reversible; but the oourt merely accepted the idea for the
purposes of that case, as they are wont to do if neither party disputes
a legal position and it is at all credible, while explicity saying they
were not making a ruling on the reversibility of Article 50.
I have no opinion on the legal question myself, but we could always ask
to rejoin!
Roger, did I say the Supreme Court had ruled on the matter? Read what I
posted- not what you think I posted. That is how Jim went off on his
Merc fantasy, and you and chums end up making false claims.
Roger Hayter
2018-01-22 14:02:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
snip
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Roger Hayter
This is all a bit off-topic but, in the interests of truth, that article
says the Supreme Court has *not* ruled on the matter because it has not
been asked to. It made a ruling in which both parties argued that it
was not reversible; but the oourt merely accepted the idea for the
purposes of that case, as they are wont to do if neither party disputes
a legal position and it is at all credible, while explicity saying they
were not making a ruling on the reversibility of Article 50.
I have no opinion on the legal question myself, but we could always ask
to rejoin!
Roger, did I say the Supreme Court had ruled on the matter? Read what I
posted- not what you think I posted. That is how Jim went off on his
Merc fantasy, and you and chums end up making false claims.
You said: "The Supreme Court view is it is not possible" which is
untrue, the Supreme Court does not have a view, as the Court explicitly
stated it did not have one.

Youd said: "the key part is the bit re the Supreme Court." which is
untrue as the Supreme Court has taken no position.

You may not have used the word "ruling" and indeed you may have thought
the Supreme Court made an obiter dictum on the matter. It didn't, it
merely decided a case on the basis agreed by the parties without
adopting their view of the law. This is no different from any case
being decided on the issue that divides the parties with no ruling on
parts of the case that the parties have decided not to dispute.

Try wriggling out of that!
--
Roger Hayter
Stephen Thomas Cole
2018-01-22 14:51:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roger Hayter
snip
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Roger Hayter
This is all a bit off-topic but, in the interests of truth, that article
says the Supreme Court has *not* ruled on the matter because it has not
been asked to. It made a ruling in which both parties argued that it
was not reversible; but the oourt merely accepted the idea for the
purposes of that case, as they are wont to do if neither party disputes
a legal position and it is at all credible, while explicity saying they
were not making a ruling on the reversibility of Article 50.
I have no opinion on the legal question myself, but we could always ask
to rejoin!
Roger, did I say the Supreme Court had ruled on the matter? Read what I
posted- not what you think I posted. That is how Jim went off on his
Merc fantasy, and you and chums end up making false claims.
You said: "The Supreme Court view is it is not possible" which is
untrue, the Supreme Court does not have a view, as the Court explicitly
stated it did not have one.
Youd said: "the key part is the bit re the Supreme Court." which is
untrue as the Supreme Court has taken no position.
You may not have used the word "ruling" and indeed you may have thought
the Supreme Court made an obiter dictum on the matter. It didn't, it
merely decided a case on the basis agreed by the parties without
adopting their view of the law. This is no different from any case
being decided on the issue that divides the parties with no ruling on
parts of the case that the parties have decided not to dispute.
*applause*
Post by Roger Hayter
Try wriggling out of that!
I'm all eyes!
--
STC / M0TEY /
http://twitter.com/ukradioamateur
Jim GM4DHJ ...
2018-01-22 15:05:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roger Hayter
snip
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Roger Hayter
This is all a bit off-topic but, in the interests of truth, that article
says the Supreme Court has *not* ruled on the matter because it has not
been asked to. It made a ruling in which both parties argued that it
was not reversible; but the oourt merely accepted the idea for the
purposes of that case, as they are wont to do if neither party disputes
a legal position and it is at all credible, while explicity saying they
were not making a ruling on the reversibility of Article 50.
I have no opinion on the legal question myself, but we could always ask
to rejoin!
Roger, did I say the Supreme Court had ruled on the matter? Read what I
posted- not what you think I posted. That is how Jim went off on his
Merc fantasy, and you and chums end up making false claims.
You said: "The Supreme Court view is it is not possible" which is
untrue, the Supreme Court does not have a view, as the Court explicitly
stated it did not have one.
Youd said: "the key part is the bit re the Supreme Court." which is
untrue as the Supreme Court has taken no position.
You may not have used the word "ruling" and indeed you may have thought
the Supreme Court made an obiter dictum on the matter. It didn't, it
merely decided a case on the basis agreed by the parties without
adopting their view of the law. This is no different from any case
being decided on the issue that divides the parties with no ruling on
parts of the case that the parties have decided not to dispute.
Try wriggling out of that!
brian will manage it .....expert wiggler he is ....
Brian Reay
2018-01-22 16:34:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roger Hayter
snip
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Roger Hayter
This is all a bit off-topic but, in the interests of truth, that article
says the Supreme Court has *not* ruled on the matter because it has not
been asked to. It made a ruling in which both parties argued that it
was not reversible; but the oourt merely accepted the idea for the
purposes of that case, as they are wont to do if neither party disputes
a legal position and it is at all credible, while explicity saying they
were not making a ruling on the reversibility of Article 50.
I have no opinion on the legal question myself, but we could always ask
to rejoin!
Roger, did I say the Supreme Court had ruled on the matter? Read what I
posted- not what you think I posted. That is how Jim went off on his
Merc fantasy, and you and chums end up making false claims.
You said: "The Supreme Court view is it is not possible" which is
untrue, the Supreme Court does not have a view, as the Court explicitly
stated it did not have one.
Youd said: "the key part is the bit re the Supreme Court." which is
untrue as the Supreme Court has taken no position.
You may not have used the word "ruling" and indeed you may have thought
the Supreme Court made an obiter dictum on the matter. It didn't, it
merely decided a case on the basis agreed by the parties without
adopting their view of the law. This is no different from any case
being decided on the issue that divides the parties with no ruling on
parts of the case that the parties have decided not to dispute.
Try wriggling out of that!
You seem to be the one trying to wriggle, after you made a false claim.

Like your fellow usual rejects, you jumped in with both feet having not
checked what I'd posted.
Jim GM4DHJ ...
2018-01-22 16:49:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Reay
snip
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Roger Hayter
This is all a bit off-topic but, in the interests of truth, that article
says the Supreme Court has *not* ruled on the matter because it has not
been asked to.  It made a ruling in which both parties argued that it
was not reversible;   but the oourt merely accepted the idea for the
purposes of that case, as they are wont to do if neither party disputes
a legal position and it is at all credible, while explicity saying they
were not making a ruling on the reversibility of Article 50.
I have no opinion on the legal question myself, but we could always ask
to rejoin!
Roger, did I say the Supreme Court had ruled on the matter? Read what I
posted- not what you think I posted. That is how Jim went off on his
Merc fantasy, and you and chums end up making false claims.
You said: "The Supreme Court view is it is not possible"  which is
untrue, the Supreme Court does not have a view, as the Court explicitly
stated it did not have one.
Youd said:  "the key part is the bit re the Supreme Court." which is
untrue as the Supreme Court has taken no position.
You may not have used the word "ruling" and indeed you may have thought
the Supreme Court made an obiter dictum on the matter.  It didn't, it
merely decided a case on the basis agreed by the parties without
adopting their view of the law.  This is no different from any case
being decided on the issue that divides the parties with no ruling on
parts of the case that the parties have decided not to dispute.
Try wriggling out of that!
You seem to be the one trying to wriggle, after you made a false claim.
Like your fellow usual rejects, you jumped in with both feet having not
checked what I'd posted.
yes but what can you do .....
Roger Hayter
2018-01-22 19:03:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Roger Hayter
snip
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Roger Hayter
This is all a bit off-topic but, in the interests of truth, that article
says the Supreme Court has *not* ruled on the matter because it has not
been asked to. It made a ruling in which both parties argued that it
was not reversible; but the oourt merely accepted the idea for the
purposes of that case, as they are wont to do if neither party disputes
a legal position and it is at all credible, while explicity saying they
were not making a ruling on the reversibility of Article 50.
I have no opinion on the legal question myself, but we could always ask
to rejoin!
Roger, did I say the Supreme Court had ruled on the matter? Read what I
posted- not what you think I posted. That is how Jim went off on his
Merc fantasy, and you and chums end up making false claims.
You said: "The Supreme Court view is it is not possible" which is
untrue, the Supreme Court does not have a view, as the Court explicitly
stated it did not have one.
Youd said: "the key part is the bit re the Supreme Court." which is
untrue as the Supreme Court has taken no position.
You may not have used the word "ruling" and indeed you may have thought
the Supreme Court made an obiter dictum on the matter. It didn't, it
merely decided a case on the basis agreed by the parties without
adopting their view of the law. This is no different from any case
being decided on the issue that divides the parties with no ruling on
parts of the case that the parties have decided not to dispute.
Try wriggling out of that!
You seem to be the one trying to wriggle, after you made a false claim.
Like your fellow usual rejects, you jumped in with both feet having not
checked what I'd posted.
I said that the Supreme Court had not ruled on the matter. What is
false about that? Are you imagining some claim I might have made about
you? I can't see one. You seem to have gone off on a fantasy about
what I might have said, not what I did say.
--
Roger Hayter
Brian Reay
2018-01-22 19:08:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roger Hayter
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Roger Hayter
snip
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Roger Hayter
This is all a bit off-topic but, in the interests of truth, that article
says the Supreme Court has *not* ruled on the matter because it has not
been asked to. It made a ruling in which both parties argued that it
was not reversible; but the oourt merely accepted the idea for the
purposes of that case, as they are wont to do if neither party disputes
a legal position and it is at all credible, while explicity saying they
were not making a ruling on the reversibility of Article 50.
I have no opinion on the legal question myself, but we could always ask
to rejoin!
Roger, did I say the Supreme Court had ruled on the matter? Read what I
posted- not what you think I posted. That is how Jim went off on his
Merc fantasy, and you and chums end up making false claims.
You said: "The Supreme Court view is it is not possible" which is
untrue, the Supreme Court does not have a view, as the Court explicitly
stated it did not have one.
Youd said: "the key part is the bit re the Supreme Court." which is
untrue as the Supreme Court has taken no position.
You may not have used the word "ruling" and indeed you may have thought
the Supreme Court made an obiter dictum on the matter. It didn't, it
merely decided a case on the basis agreed by the parties without
adopting their view of the law. This is no different from any case
being decided on the issue that divides the parties with no ruling on
parts of the case that the parties have decided not to dispute.
Try wriggling out of that!
You seem to be the one trying to wriggle, after you made a false claim.
Like your fellow usual rejects, you jumped in with both feet having not
checked what I'd posted.
I said that the Supreme Court had not ruled on the matter. What is
false about that? Are you imagining some claim I might have made about
you? I can't see one. You seem to have gone off on a fantasy about
what I might have said, not what I did say.
You are wriggling.
Roger Hayter
2018-01-22 19:30:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Roger Hayter
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Roger Hayter
snip
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Roger Hayter
This is all a bit off-topic but, in the interests of truth, that article
says the Supreme Court has *not* ruled on the matter because it has not
been asked to. It made a ruling in which both parties argued that it
was not reversible; but the oourt merely accepted the idea for the
purposes of that case, as they are wont to do if neither party disputes
a legal position and it is at all credible, while explicity saying they
were not making a ruling on the reversibility of Article 50.
I have no opinion on the legal question myself, but we could always ask
to rejoin!
Roger, did I say the Supreme Court had ruled on the matter? Read what I
posted- not what you think I posted. That is how Jim went off on his
Merc fantasy, and you and chums end up making false claims.
You said: "The Supreme Court view is it is not possible" which is
untrue, the Supreme Court does not have a view, as the Court explicitly
stated it did not have one.
Youd said: "the key part is the bit re the Supreme Court." which is
untrue as the Supreme Court has taken no position.
You may not have used the word "ruling" and indeed you may have thought
the Supreme Court made an obiter dictum on the matter. It didn't, it
merely decided a case on the basis agreed by the parties without
adopting their view of the law. This is no different from any case
being decided on the issue that divides the parties with no ruling on
parts of the case that the parties have decided not to dispute.
Try wriggling out of that!
You seem to be the one trying to wriggle, after you made a false claim.
Like your fellow usual rejects, you jumped in with both feet having not
checked what I'd posted.
I said that the Supreme Court had not ruled on the matter. What is
false about that? Are you imagining some claim I might have made about
you? I can't see one. You seem to have gone off on a fantasy about
what I might have said, not what I did say.
You are wriggling.
Not at all! The bottom line is that you tried to correct Steve by
claiming that the Supreme Court had thrown doubt on the reversibility of
Article 50. It hasn't.
--
Roger Hayter
Paul Cummins
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Reay
Still dreaming I see Steve.
Reay seems to have forgotten that, other than the lurkers, Schteve was
his only friend left here.
--
Are you an Inadequate Kentish Defective?
Do you need help shuffling off your mortal coil?
http://www.dignitas.ch might be willing to help.
Don't delay, call them today - trade in on Smart Car offered.
Jim GM4DHJ ...
2018-01-22 19:32:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Cummins
Post by Brian Reay
Still dreaming I see Steve.
Reay seems to have forgotten that, other than the lurkers, Schteve was
his only friend left here.
even that friendship is didgy ....
Brian Reay
2018-01-22 19:44:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Cummins
Post by Brian Reay
Still dreaming I see Steve.
Reay seems to have forgotten that, other than the lurkers, Schteve was
his only friend left here.
Unlike some, I choose my friends carefully.
Jim GM4DHJ ...
2018-01-22 19:46:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Paul Cummins
Post by Brian Reay
Still dreaming I see Steve.
Reay seems to have forgotten that, other than the lurkers, Schteve was
his only friend left here.
Unlike some, I choose my friends carefully.
and end up with only brothers ...tee hee
Jim GM4DHJ ...
2018-01-22 19:47:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Paul Cummins
Post by Brian Reay
Still dreaming I see Steve.
Reay seems to have forgotten that, other than the lurkers, Schteve was
his only friend left here.
Unlike some, I choose my friends carefully.
everybody is my friend...except you.....
Stephen Thomas Cole
2018-01-22 20:07:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Cummins
Post by Brian Reay
Still dreaming I see Steve.
Reay seems to have forgotten that, other than the lurkers, Schteve was
his only friend left here.
What's with the "was"? Disagreeing violently with Brian's bonkers politics
doesn't mean I dislike him, y'know?
--
STC / M0TEY /
http://twitter.com/ukradioamateur
Brian Reay
2018-01-22 20:33:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
Post by Paul Cummins
Post by Brian Reay
Still dreaming I see Steve.
Reay seems to have forgotten that, other than the lurkers, Schteve was
his only friend left here.
What's with the "was"? Disagreeing violently with Brian's bonkers politics
doesn't mean I dislike him, y'know?
It is you politics which is 'bonkers' ;-)
Rambo
2018-01-23 01:49:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
Post by Paul Cummins
Post by Brian Reay
Still dreaming I see Steve.
Reay seems to have forgotten that, other than the lurkers, Schteve was
his only friend left here.
What's with the "was"? Disagreeing violently with Brian's bonkers politics
doesn't mean I dislike him, y'know?
It is you politics which is 'bonkers' ;-)
Spike
2018-01-23 09:06:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Reay
It is you politics which is 'bonkers' ;-)
Didn't you once maintain that errors such as made above implies 'mental
deterioration?
--
Spike

"Once you see the RSGB logo you know that you are on the right track"
But to what? Publish RSGBTech/RSGBTechnical's definitions of
'genuine', 'interest', 'known', 'trouble', and 'maker', and the vetting
policy.
Brian Howie
2018-01-22 11:28:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In message
Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
You know things are bad for a Conservative government when even the fucking
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/01/21/seen-enough-know-theresa-
may-cant-change-must-go/
I've also seen the Mail take an increasingly harder line on May recently,
it won't take many more of these kind of articles to embolden enough MPs to
take her down and trigger a leadership election, which'll almost certainly
precipitate a general election and, most likely, a Corbyn government! At
which point Labour can perfectly justifiably say that the Tories have made
such a bollocks of negotiations that there is no choice but to revoke
Article 50 and look at the whole thing again, kicking the Brexit can down
the road until enough old racists are in the ground to guarantee a second
referendum would have no chance of ending up Leave. Woo!
The flaw in the argument that the old people are dying off, is they are
replaced by other older people. One becomes more conservative and less
radical with age.

The same sort of argument has been applied to the Scottish Referendum,
where the old people did much to swing the vote.

Incidentally I voted to join the EEC way back, I also voted to Remain
and Yes. Maybe I'm not a typical old bloke.

Brian
--
Brian Howie
Brian Reay
2018-01-22 12:16:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Howie
In message
Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
You know things are bad for a Conservative government when even the fucking
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/01/21/seen-enough-know-theresa-
may-cant-change-must-go/
I've also seen the Mail take an increasingly harder line on May recently,
it won't take many more of these kind of articles to embolden enough MPs to
take her down and trigger a leadership election, which'll almost certainly
precipitate a general election and, most likely, a Corbyn government! At
which point Labour can perfectly justifiably say that the Tories have made
such a bollocks of negotiations that there is no choice but to revoke
Article 50 and look at the whole thing again, kicking the Brexit can down
the road until enough old racists are in the ground to guarantee a second
referendum would have no chance of ending up Leave. Woo!
The flaw in the argument that the old people are  dying off, is they are
replaced by other older people. One becomes more conservative and less
radical with age.
It isn't just age. Those who think the left offer an 'easy solution'
tend to be those who haven't worked and actually achieved much. There
are the 'Claret Lefties' but they tend be 'less equal' than those they
claim to represent.
Rambo
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Brian Howie
In message
Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
You know things are bad for a Conservative government when even the fucking
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/01/21/seen-enough-know-theresa-
may-cant-change-must-go/
I've also seen the Mail take an increasingly harder line on May recently,
it won't take many more of these kind of articles to embolden enough MPs to
take her down and trigger a leadership election, which'll almost certainly
precipitate a general election and, most likely, a Corbyn government! At
which point Labour can perfectly justifiably say that the Tories have made
such a bollocks of negotiations that there is no choice but to revoke
Article 50 and look at the whole thing again, kicking the Brexit can down
the road until enough old racists are in the ground to guarantee a second
referendum would have no chance of ending up Leave. Woo!
The flaw in the argument that the old people are dying off, is they are
replaced by other older people. One becomes more conservative and less
radical with age.
It isn't just age. Those who think the left offer an 'easy solution'
tend to be those who haven't worked and actually achieved much. There
are the 'Claret Lefties' but they tend be 'less equal' than those they
claim to represent.
So the 3 million plus members of the 14 trades unions affiliated
to the Labour Party aren't actually workers then?



--
Stephen Thomas Cole
2018-01-22 14:51:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Howie
In message
Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
You know things are bad for a Conservative government when even the fucking
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/01/21/seen-enough-know-theresa-
may-cant-change-must-go/
I've also seen the Mail take an increasingly harder line on May recently,
it won't take many more of these kind of articles to embolden enough MPs to
take her down and trigger a leadership election, which'll almost certainly
precipitate a general election and, most likely, a Corbyn government! At
which point Labour can perfectly justifiably say that the Tories have made
such a bollocks of negotiations that there is no choice but to revoke
Article 50 and look at the whole thing again, kicking the Brexit can down
the road until enough old racists are in the ground to guarantee a second
referendum would have no chance of ending up Leave. Woo!
The flaw in the argument that the old people are dying off, is they are
replaced by other older people. One becomes more conservative and less
radical with age.
The same sort of argument has been applied to the Scottish Referendum,
where the old people did much to swing the vote.
Incidentally I voted to join the EEC way back, I also voted to Remain
and Yes. Maybe I'm not a typical old bloke.
Thing is, that's probably not happening any more. The "tipping point" age,
where folk go more likely to vote Tory than Labour, is rising steadily.
Tories are dying much faster than they're being replaced by new Tories, and
Brexiteers are dying out even faster than that!
--
STC / M0TEY /
http://twitter.com/ukradioamateur
Roger Hayter
2018-01-22 15:22:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
Post by Brian Howie
In message
Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
You know things are bad for a Conservative government when even the fucking
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/01/21/seen-enough-know-theresa-
may-cant-change-must-go/
I've also seen the Mail take an increasingly harder line on May recently,
it won't take many more of these kind of articles to embolden enough MPs to
take her down and trigger a leadership election, which'll almost certainly
precipitate a general election and, most likely, a Corbyn government! At
which point Labour can perfectly justifiably say that the Tories have made
such a bollocks of negotiations that there is no choice but to revoke
Article 50 and look at the whole thing again, kicking the Brexit can down
the road until enough old racists are in the ground to guarantee a second
referendum would have no chance of ending up Leave. Woo!
The flaw in the argument that the old people are dying off, is they are
replaced by other older people. One becomes more conservative and less
radical with age.
The same sort of argument has been applied to the Scottish Referendum,
where the old people did much to swing the vote.
Incidentally I voted to join the EEC way back, I also voted to Remain
and Yes. Maybe I'm not a typical old bloke.
Thing is, that's probably not happening any more. The "tipping point" age,
where folk go more likely to vote Tory than Labour, is rising steadily.
Tories are dying much faster than they're being replaced by new Tories, and
Brexiteers are dying out even faster than that!
Don't forget that the Tories have, since 2011, managed to reverse the
100 year secular trend of increasing life expectancy in this country.[1]
So even if people do become Tory voters in their dotage there won't be
so many of them around.


[1] https://www.ft.com/content/78146114-15f5-11e7-80f4-13e067d5072c
--
Roger Hayter
Jim GM4DHJ ...
2018-01-22 15:54:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roger Hayter
Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
Post by Brian Howie
In message
Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
You know things are bad for a Conservative government when even the fucking
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/01/21/seen-enough-know-theresa-
may-cant-change-must-go/
I've also seen the Mail take an increasingly harder line on May recently,
it won't take many more of these kind of articles to embolden enough MPs to
take her down and trigger a leadership election, which'll almost certainly
precipitate a general election and, most likely, a Corbyn government! At
which point Labour can perfectly justifiably say that the Tories have made
such a bollocks of negotiations that there is no choice but to revoke
Article 50 and look at the whole thing again, kicking the Brexit can down
the road until enough old racists are in the ground to guarantee a second
referendum would have no chance of ending up Leave. Woo!
The flaw in the argument that the old people are dying off, is they are
replaced by other older people. One becomes more conservative and less
radical with age.
The same sort of argument has been applied to the Scottish Referendum,
where the old people did much to swing the vote.
Incidentally I voted to join the EEC way back, I also voted to Remain
and Yes. Maybe I'm not a typical old bloke.
Thing is, that's probably not happening any more. The "tipping point" age,
where folk go more likely to vote Tory than Labour, is rising steadily.
Tories are dying much faster than they're being replaced by new Tories, and
Brexiteers are dying out even faster than that!
Don't forget that the Tories have, since 2011, managed to reverse the
100 year secular trend of increasing life expectancy in this country.[1]
So even if people do become Tory voters in their dotage there won't be
so many of them around.
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/78146114-15f5-11e7-80f4-13e067d5072c
not paying for that .....
Roger Hayter
2018-01-22 18:26:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...
Post by Roger Hayter
Don't forget that the Tories have, since 2011, managed to reverse the
100 year secular trend of increasing life expectancy in this country.[1]
So even if people do become Tory voters in their dotage there won't be
so many of them around.
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/78146114-15f5-11e7-80f4-13e067d5072c
not paying for that .....
I got to it from Google and didn't have to pay. Try "life expectancy
trends uk", but the fall hasn't filtered through to government docs yet.
I wonder why? The FT link is on the first page of the search for me.
--
Roger Hayter
Spike
2018-01-22 18:02:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roger Hayter
Don't forget that the Tories have, since 2011, managed to reverse the
100 year secular trend of increasing life expectancy in this country.[1]
So even if people do become Tory voters in their dotage there won't be
so many of them around.
[1]https://www.ft.com/content/78146114-15f5-11e7-80f4-13e067d5072c
Just to be clear here, which of these are you claiming?

[1] Including all other possible factors, the Tories and the passage of
time are the only two factors that need to be taken into account when
assessing the alleged reversal of increasing life expectancy.

[2] Excluding all other possible factors, the Tories and the passage of
time are the only two factors that need to be taken into account when
assessing the alleged reversal of increasing life expectancy.

[3] Some other factors or issues may have exerted an influence resulting
in the allegation, but they won't, or can't, be mentioned.
--
Spike

"Once you see the RSGB logo you know that you are on the right track"
But to what? Publish RSGBTech/RSGBTechnical's definitions of
'genuine', 'interest', 'known', 'trouble', and 'maker', and the vetting
policy.
Roger Hayter
2018-01-22 19:03:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Spike
Post by Roger Hayter
Don't forget that the Tories have, since 2011, managed to reverse the
100 year secular trend of increasing life expectancy in this country.[1]
So even if people do become Tory voters in their dotage there won't be
so many of them around.
[1]https://www.ft.com/content/78146114-15f5-11e7-80f4-13e067d5072c
Just to be clear here, which of these are you claiming?
[1] Including all other possible factors, the Tories and the passage of
time are the only two factors that need to be taken into account when
assessing the alleged reversal of increasing life expectancy.
[2] Excluding all other possible factors, the Tories and the passage of
time are the only two factors that need to be taken into account when
assessing the alleged reversal of increasing life expectancy.
[3] Some other factors or issues may have exerted an influence resulting
in the allegation, but they won't, or can't, be mentioned.
By their fruits shall ye know them.
--
Roger Hayter
Spike
2018-01-23 09:07:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roger Hayter
Post by Spike
Post by Roger Hayter
Don't forget that the Tories have, since 2011, managed to reverse the
100 year secular trend of increasing life expectancy in this country.[1]
So even if people do become Tory voters in their dotage there won't be
so many of them around.
[1]https://www.ft.com/content/78146114-15f5-11e7-80f4-13e067d5072c
Just to be clear here, which of these are you claiming?
[1] Including all other possible factors, the Tories and the passage of
time are the only two factors that need to be taken into account when
assessing the alleged reversal of increasing life expectancy.
[2] Excluding all other possible factors, the Tories and the passage of
time are the only two factors that need to be taken into account when
assessing the alleged reversal of increasing life expectancy.
[3] Some other factors or issues may have exerted an influence resulting
in the allegation, but they won't, or can't, be mentioned.
By their fruits shall ye know them.
That response would imply [3], because of other factors/issues that the
PC brigade won't mention.
--
Spike

"Once you see the RSGB logo you know that you are on the right track"
But to what? Publish RSGBTech/RSGBTechnical's definitions of
'genuine', 'interest', 'known', 'trouble', and 'maker', and the vetting
policy.
Roger Hayter
2018-01-23 12:47:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Spike
Post by Roger Hayter
Post by Spike
Post by Roger Hayter
Don't forget that the Tories have, since 2011, managed to reverse the
100 year secular trend of increasing life expectancy in this country.[1]
So even if people do become Tory voters in their dotage there won't be
so many of them around.
[1]https://www.ft.com/content/78146114-15f5-11e7-80f4-13e067d5072c
Just to be clear here, which of these are you claiming?
[1] Including all other possible factors, the Tories and the passage of
time are the only two factors that need to be taken into account when
assessing the alleged reversal of increasing life expectancy.
[2] Excluding all other possible factors, the Tories and the passage of
time are the only two factors that need to be taken into account when
assessing the alleged reversal of increasing life expectancy.
[3] Some other factors or issues may have exerted an influence resulting
in the allegation, but they won't, or can't, be mentioned.
By their fruits shall ye know them.
That response would imply [3], because of other factors/issues that the
PC brigade won't mention.
What does PC mean in this context, other than "something I don't like"?
There are obviously mechanisms whereby the fall in life expectancy comes
about, but they may well themselves be influenced by government policy.
Obesity for instance.
--
Roger Hayter
Spike
2018-01-24 09:49:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roger Hayter
Post by Spike
Post by Roger Hayter
Post by Spike
Post by Roger Hayter
Don't forget that the Tories have, since 2011, managed to reverse the
100 year secular trend of increasing life expectancy in this country.[1]
So even if people do become Tory voters in their dotage there won't be
so many of them around.
[1]https://www.ft.com/content/78146114-15f5-11e7-80f4-13e067d5072c
Just to be clear here, which of these are you claiming?
[1] Including all other possible factors, the Tories and the passage of
time are the only two factors that need to be taken into account when
assessing the alleged reversal of increasing life expectancy.
[2] Excluding all other possible factors, the Tories and the passage of
time are the only two factors that need to be taken into account when
assessing the alleged reversal of increasing life expectancy.
[3] Some other factors or issues may have exerted an influence resulting
in the allegation, but they won't, or can't, be mentioned.
By their fruits shall ye know them.
That response would imply [3], because of other factors/issues that the
PC brigade won't mention.
What does PC mean in this context, other than "something I don't like"?
The same as it means in any current socio-political context.
Post by Roger Hayter
There are obviously mechanisms whereby the fall in life expectancy comes
about, but they may well themselves be influenced by government policy.
Obesity for instance.
One thing you might like to try is to estimate the fall in life span due
to several million new arrivals coming from countries with lower
life-spans than the indigenous UK population, and continuing with
unhealthy life-styles. But perhaps that's what you were getting at?
--
Spike

"Once you see the RSGB logo you know that you are on the right track"
But to what? Publish RSGBTech/RSGBTechnical's definitions of
'genuine', 'interest', 'known', 'trouble', and 'maker', and the vetting
policy.
Stephen Thomas Cole
2018-01-24 10:39:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Spike
Post by Roger Hayter
Post by Spike
Post by Roger Hayter
Post by Spike
Post by Roger Hayter
Don't forget that the Tories have, since 2011, managed to reverse the
100 year secular trend of increasing life expectancy in this country.[1]
So even if people do become Tory voters in their dotage there won't be
so many of them around.
[1]https://www.ft.com/content/78146114-15f5-11e7-80f4-13e067d5072c
Just to be clear here, which of these are you claiming?
[1] Including all other possible factors, the Tories and the passage of
time are the only two factors that need to be taken into account when
assessing the alleged reversal of increasing life expectancy.
[2] Excluding all other possible factors, the Tories and the passage of
time are the only two factors that need to be taken into account when
assessing the alleged reversal of increasing life expectancy.
[3] Some other factors or issues may have exerted an influence resulting
in the allegation, but they won't, or can't, be mentioned.
By their fruits shall ye know them.
That response would imply [3], because of other factors/issues that the
PC brigade won't mention.
What does PC mean in this context, other than "something I don't like"?
The same as it means in any current socio-political context.
Post by Roger Hayter
There are obviously mechanisms whereby the fall in life expectancy comes
about, but they may well themselves be influenced by government policy.
Obesity for instance.
One thing you might like to try is to estimate the fall in life span due
to several million new arrivals coming from countries with lower
life-spans than the indigenous UK population, and continuing with
unhealthy life-styles. But perhaps that's what you were getting at?
"indigenous UK population"

LOL

Oh, Burt.
--
STC / M0TEY /
http://twitter.com/ukradioamateur
Jim GM4DHJ ...
2018-01-23 10:34:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roger Hayter
Post by Spike
Post by Roger Hayter
Don't forget that the Tories have, since 2011, managed to reverse the
100 year secular trend of increasing life expectancy in this country.[1]
So even if people do become Tory voters in their dotage there won't be
so many of them around.
[1]https://www.ft.com/content/78146114-15f5-11e7-80f4-13e067d5072c
Just to be clear here, which of these are you claiming?
[1] Including all other possible factors, the Tories and the passage of
time are the only two factors that need to be taken into account when
assessing the alleged reversal of increasing life expectancy.
[2] Excluding all other possible factors, the Tories and the passage of
time are the only two factors that need to be taken into account when
assessing the alleged reversal of increasing life expectancy.
[3] Some other factors or issues may have exerted an influence resulting
in the allegation, but they won't, or can't, be mentioned.
By their fruits shall ye know them.
BONA
Bernie
2018-02-04 15:07:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 22 Jan 2018 09:56:43 GMT
Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
You know things are bad for a Conservative government when even the
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/01/21/seen-enough-know-theresa-may-cant-change-must-go/
I've also seen the Mail take an increasingly harder line on May
recently, it won't take many more of these kind of articles to
embolden enough MPs to take her down and trigger a leadership
election, which'll almost certainly precipitate a general election
and, most likely, a Corbyn government! At which point Labour can
perfectly justifiably say that the Tories have made such a bollocks
of negotiations that there is no choice but to revoke Article 50 and
look at the whole thing again, kicking the Brexit can down the road
until enough old racists are in the ground to guarantee a second
referendum would have no chance of ending up Leave. Woo!
Yanis:

https://www.opendemocracy.net/can-europe-make-it/yanis-varoufakis/magnificent-oomph-securing-progressive-brexit-0
Loading...