On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 15:11:37 +0000, Capitol
wrote:

UKIP seem to be the only party who are reporting the activities of our
EU masters.

They are not are masters.

Why aren't the other politicians not representing us doing so?

Sometimes they do, but it's really the media's job to report as such.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 16:33:57 +0000, Andy Cap
wrote:

On 10/29/2013 04:23 PM, Tim Streater wrote:

We elect
them to run the country under the existing set up.

You may like to think that we do or ought, but your own complaint
proves that actually we do not. Perhaps that should be changed for
the future, but it's no good complaining about the past.

Couldn't agree more, though I'd prefer out.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I find it hard to believe that
leaving the EU would improve anything much in our daily lives, and may
well make things worse ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union

"With a combined population of over 500 million inhabitants,[22] or
7.3% of the world population,[23] the EU in 2012 generated a nominal
gross domestic product (GDP) of 16.584 trillion US dollars,
constituting approximately 23% of global nominal GDP and 20% when
measured in terms of purchasing power parity, which is the largest
nominal GDP and GDP PPP in the world."

.... why the desire to leave when we are ahead?

I think referenda should be
used far more in parliament too, because claiming something was in a
manifesto is a joke. Firstly it highly unlikely you agree with
everything across the board and so voting becomes negative activity,
looking for the one you think will do least damage and secondly, there
is no obligation on doing what they say they will.

Can't disagree with that.

One example was the
change to fix term parliaments. A major change and yet done on on a
whim by a couple of guys.

That was a very good change indeed, and long overdue. It stops the
Margaret Thatchers of this world allowing the country to be embroiled
in a war, winning it, and then seeking re-election on the resulting
tide of popularity. That and the independence since of the BoE also
make it more difficult for them to manipulate the economy to win a
forthcoming election, because the timing of any resulting benefit can
never be certain, and it avoids the unnecessary expense of running
elections more often at the incumbent PM's whim, because the world
economy happens to be being kind to the UK at a particular point in
time.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

Quite ...

On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 16:25:07 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

And that they can't name one is neither here nor there. We're still
paying for those lazy UKIP MEP SOBs, so why don't the ****ers do the
job they're being paid to - out of our taxes?
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 16:11:46 +0000, Andy Cap
wrote:

You're talking rubbish ! We voted to remain in the Common Market, most
people foolishly believing Heath's statement that there would be no loss
of sovereignty, which was a DOWNRIGHT LIE!

Whether or not Heath lied is a little irrelevant, considering Harold
Wilson was in power at the time, and surprise, surprise, held the
referendum in conformance with a manifesto pledge!

If people had been told the
truth, I very much doubt the result would have been the same but it's
abundantly clear that the so-called democrats in our parliament are
nothing of the sort.

Get real. After all we have to live in the real world, and share it
as peaceably and equably as possible with others. If we weren't in
the EU, we would still be members of NATO, the UN, various trade
agreements, etc. All these are effectively a voluntary reduction in
national sovereignty for the sake of living peacefully in a more or
less peaceful world. Accession to the EU is no different from that.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

To make a point about greater use of referenda for the future is
valid, but EU accession happened 40 years ago, the Conservatives did
win the next election, membership was ratified by a referendum when
Labour came to power, and it's no good screaming "Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!"
for something that happened forty years ago, particularly when so many
worse things have happened since.

On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 16:57:22 +0000, Andy Cap
wrote:

"I think referenda should be used far more in parliament too, because
claiming something was in a manifesto is a joke. Firstly it highly
unlikely you agree with everything across the board and so voting
becomes negative activity, looking for the one you think will do least
damage and secondly, there is no obligation on doing what they say they
will."
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

Adrian writes:

On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 12:53:09 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

And they wonder why UKIP membership is increasing faster than its
declining in the other parties....

Perhaps because those liable to join UKIP are easily swayed by such
selective reporting?

I notice you omitted this bit...
"Experts have reported that in Netherlands, and maybe soon in France,
toilets with less than 6 litres per flush cannot be installed. Portugal
should face the same limitations. In the UK, new toilets with more than 6
l/flush are forbidden and installations of toilets with less than 6 l/
flush are encouraged though it depends on where and when the property was
built, the drainage system installed, etc. For Britain, the Commission
notes that some toilets already in place before the new legislation can
use 7 or 9 l/flush."

Sometimes reduced volumes force one to flush twice.........



--
Windmill, Use t m i l l
J.R.R. Tolkien:- @ S c o t s h o m e . c o m
All that is gold does not glister / Not all who wander are lost

Link?

I haven't had time to read every word - it's getting late - but I
can't find any such thing here ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon

On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 18:32:08 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

Thass why the last treaty contained an enabling clause, so these same
bigwigs can declare the next step enabled BY ORDER, with none of this
pesky consultation nonsense required. Clever, eh?
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

It was a vote to remain in the EU, so I find it difficult to conceive
how it could possibly be interpreted as anything other than a vote for
the EU.

On 29 Oct 2013 22:30:39 GMT, Huge wrote:

Except that wasn't a vote for the EU
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

:~)

Note, I'm wrinkling up my nose ...

On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 19:01:14 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , John
Rumm wrote:

Roll on the EU standard turd

I'd rather not, thanks, if it's all the same to you.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

"Java Jive" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 14:30:40 +0000, Andy Cap
wrote:

On 10/29/2013 02:13 PM, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 13:35:14 +0000, Andy Cap wrote:


Ah, the usual knee-jerk fallback position of the UKIP-hard-of-thinking
when faced with reality.

BTW, would your migration complaint be relating to intra-EU migration
(which doesn't affect the total EU population one tiny bit, of course),
legal external migration (which is already very strictly controlled),
or
illegal external migration (which is already... illegal)?

There's absolutely NOTHING knee-jerk about it.

Your thinking may not be knee-jerk, but it wasn't you who made the OP.

Have you *any* idea how
fast the world's population is growing?

Yes, I've pointed out the problem many times before in ngs such as
this, usually accompanied by a phrase such as "We cannot go on
ignoring the elephant in the room".

Then add in the naturally
improving standard of living of the Third World and I think we have a
problem Houston!

Why is that a problem. Improved living standards tend to lead to
better education of women, and better education of women tends to lead
to a reduction in birthrate.


For democracy to work, you need meaningful
constituencies and what these artificial area do is alienate elector's
interest, thereby giving total control to the Eurocrats in our case.

You seem to be arguing from your own particular to everyone else's
general.

There is nothing to stop us co-operating of issues as above, of mutual
interest but a NWO is anti-democratic and I have a perfect right to hold
that view as you have to favour the status-quo or even further
integration.

The problem with an organisation like UKIP is that they create bogey
men to point fingers at. They are making Europe the new 'Jewish
Problem'. Unfortunately, there are people in every country stupid
enough to fall for such cynical 'hate' tactics, including some here
who should know better. The irony of it is that the worst of them,
the OP in this thread, has an obvious anti-German bias, but is falling
for exactly the same sort jingoism that the Nazis used to justify
their attacks on Jews.

I disagree with TurNiP on most things but he's right about this.
The EU is an orgsnisation corrupt through and through.
No-one knows where the money goes, it's accounts have never been signed off
since inception.
It is run largely by socialist apparachniks from East Europe bent on
rebuilding a socialist soviet (or fourth riech).
The whole outfit is propped up by non-existant funny money.

There will be a day of reckoning and we don't want to be there when it
happens.
There is nothing these people won't do, nothing they won't steal to prop up
their socialist tyranny

"Java Jive" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 16:51:40 -0000, "harryagain"
wrote:

There are thousands of muslims landing in Lampedusa every month.

Link?

Thr EU wants to ship themNorth ie to us.

Link?


http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...pedusa-tragedy

Why do you suppose our hospitals, education sytem and housing are all
stretched?


http://www.publications.parliament.u...onaf/82/82.pdf

Or if that's too hard for you to understand
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7215624.stm

Are you so thick you can't find this stuff for yourself?

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 17:00:15 +0000, harryagain wrote:

I would prefer that all toilets had to pass a customer function test
before being allowed to be sold.

I rather suspect they all work on installation, and it's merely a
question of lack of maintenance and repair in the interim.

Just what maintainance is needed on a toilet?

On one that's working just fine? None whatsoever.
On one that isn't flushing properly, however...

That is a repair, not maintaenance.

So they're just **** toilets.

"Java Jive" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 16:33:57 +0000, Andy Cap
wrote:

On 10/29/2013 04:23 PM, Tim Streater wrote:

We elect
them to run the country under the existing set up.

You may like to think that we do or ought, but your own complaint
proves that actually we do not. Perhaps that should be changed for
the future, but it's no good complaining about the past.

Couldn't agree more, though I'd prefer out.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I find it hard to believe that
leaving the EU would improve anything much in our daily lives, and may
well make things worse ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union

"With a combined population of over 500 million inhabitants,[22] or
7.3% of the world population,[23] the EU in 2012 generated a nominal
gross domestic product (GDP) of 16.584 trillion US dollars,
constituting approximately 23% of global nominal GDP and 20% when
measured in terms of purchasing power parity, which is the largest
nominal GDP and GDP PPP in the world."

... why the desire to leave when we are ahead?

I think referenda should be
used far more in parliament too, because claiming something was in a
manifesto is a joke. Firstly it highly unlikely you agree with
everything across the board and so voting becomes negative activity,
looking for the one you think will do least damage and secondly, there
is no obligation on doing what they say they will.

Can't disagree with that.

One example was the
change to fix term parliaments. A major change and yet done on on a
whim by a couple of guys.

That was a very good change indeed, and long overdue. It stops the
Margaret Thatchers of this world allowing the country to be embroiled
in a war, winning it, and then seeking re-election on the resulting
tide of popularity. That and the independence since of the BoE also
make it more difficult for them to manipulate the economy to win a
forthcoming election, because the timing of any resulting benefit can
never be certain, and it avoids the unnecessary expense of running
elections more often at the incumbent PM's whim, because the world
economy happens to be being kind to the UK at a particular point in
time.
--


Why shouldn't a government do popular things?

On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 08:19:20 +0000, harryagain wrote:

So they're just **** toilets.

Some are, yes. Some people do insist on buying the cheapest possible
things going, never mind the quality/TCO.

On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 00:46:57 +0000, Java Jive wrote:

Get real. After all we have to live in the real world, and share it as
peaceably and equably as possible with others. If we weren't in the EU,
we would still be members of NATO, the UN, various trade agreements,
etc.

Including, of course, EFTA - as Norway, Switzerland and the other
"fringe" states are. Which, of course, would still tie us to EU
standardisation (as would simple economics, since we'd inevitably be
sourcing the same products from the same plants as EU countries). Except
we'd have bollock-all input to the EU.

Seems to me to be losing input for no gain, just to try to make some ill-
considered political point founded on misunderstandings and plain lies.

On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 00:11:18 +0000, Java Jive wrote:

Why aren't the other politicians not representing us doing so?

Sometimes they do, but it's really the media's job to report as such.

Gawd help us all...

On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 23:51:28 +0000, Java Jive wrote:

"In the UK, new toilets with more than 6 l/flush are forbidden" - I
fear that blocked toilets will soon be a regular feature of the TNP
household - 6l is nothing like enough for the amount of **** he
produces.

And, clearly, that's not an EU standard - since this whole debate arose
from an initial EU report into setting a standard, including the snippet
that the only bogs we can install are illegal in other EU countries.

In other words, that's **** of our own making.

"Java Jive" wrote in message
...
To make a point about greater use of referenda for the future is
valid, but EU accession happened 40 years ago, the Conservatives did
win the next election, membership was ratified by a referendum when
Labour came to power, and it's no good screaming "Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!"
for something that happened forty years ago, particularly when so many
worse things have happened since.


Many of them because of the EU.

On 30/10/2013 08:22, harryagain wrote:


Why shouldn't a government do popular things?



Why do small minded people like you always think their views are popular?

Get a life and mix with people other than the ones in your club and get
a true idea of why you are hated.

On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 10:35:32 +0000, Jethro_uk wrote:

And they wonder why UKIP membership is increasing faster than its
declining in the other parties....

A good reason to vote for an independent Scotland ...

Would that be the same Scotland who'll have no option but to sign up to
the Euro and Schengen if they wish to rejoin the EU (which the SNP've
sworn they will do)?

Actually, if the EU want to standardise something, book sizes would be
a good place to start. Ever tried to pack a variety of books into a
trunk?

How about phone chargers ?

Phone chargers _have_ been standardised for a few years. Well, all apart
from Apple, who are "special".

One suspects that the claimed attribution is false. Certainly, it
shouldn't be believed until proven. Link?

On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 09:34:45 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

I disagree with harry about most things, but there was an interesting
quote on Twitter the other day, attributed to Mr Gorbachev. He
apparently cannot understand why European politicians are trying to
recreate the Soviet Union in Western Europe.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

Blimey Harry. I don't think you belong here. You'd best emigrate to
America, you can find all the right-wing bigotry you want there -
mostly funded by the Koch Bros.

On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 08:03:24 -0000, "harryagain"
wrote:

I disagree with TurNiP on most things but he's right about this.
The EU is an orgsnisation corrupt through and through.
No-one knows where the money goes, it's accounts have never been signed off
since inception.
It is run largely by socialist apparachniks from East Europe bent on
rebuilding a socialist soviet (or fourth riech).
The whole outfit is propped up by non-existant funny money.

There will be a day of reckoning and we don't want to be there when it
happens.
There is nothing these people won't do, nothing they won't steal to prop up
their socialist tyranny
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 08:17:57 -0000, "harryagain"
wrote:


"Java Jive" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 16:51:40 -0000, "harryagain"
wrote:

There are thousands of muslims landing in Lampedusa every month.

Link?

Thr EU wants to ship themNorth ie to us.

Link?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...pedusa-tragedy

Nothing there about the EU wanting to ship them north to the UK.

Why do you suppose our hospitals, education sytem and housing are all
stretched?

http://www.publications.parliament.u...onaf/82/82.pdf

Or if that's too hard for you to understand
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7215624.stm

I've posted before about the long-term effects of immigration. The
solution is tighten EU rules, not ditch the entire EU.

Are you so thick you can't find this stuff for yourself?

I shouldn't have to. If you wish to make controversial statements and
have them taken seriously rather than dismissed as just another
bigoted rant, at least back them up with reliable facts.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

No reason at all why a government shouldn't do popular things, though
one hopes that rather than concentrate on mere popularity, they would
concentrate on doing what is best for the country, which may or may
not be popular at any one particular time.

But the fact that you've asked that shows that you've completely
missed the point I was making ... again.

On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 08:22:32 -0000, "harryagain"
wrote:

Why shouldn't a government do popular things?
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

What is the worst thing that has happened in this country since? 7/7
probably, or the Marchioness disaster, or the people killed by storm
damage in 1987 and a few days ago, or the people killed on the roads,
or by avoidably by lung cancer, etc, etc? The EU has nothing to do
with any of these things.

On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 09:03:17 -0000, "harryagain"
wrote:

Many of them because of the EU.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

Link?

On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 09:35:41 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

They managed to throw out elected governments in Italy and Greece.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

Indeed ...

On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 08:49:14 +0000 (UTC), Adrian
wrote:

Gawd help us all...
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

I thought that had been done now, or did you mean packing them?

On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 10:35:32 GMT, Jethro_uk
wrote:

How about phone chargers ?
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

The same - it would be preferable to being part of a UK run by UKIP.

On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 10:38:49 +0000 (UTC), Adrian
wrote:

Would that be the same Scotland who'll have no option but to sign up to
the Euro and Schengen if they wish to rejoin the EU (which the SNP've
sworn they will do)?
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 13:08:10 -0000, Adrian wrote:

On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 12:53:09 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

And they wonder why UKIP membership is increasing faster than its
declining in the other parties....

Perhaps because those liable to join UKIP are easily swayed by such
selective reporting?

I notice you omitted this bit...
"Experts have reported that in Netherlands, and maybe soon in France,
toilets with less than 6 litres per flush cannot be installed. Portugal
should face the same limitations. In the UK, new toilets with more than 6
l/flush are forbidden and installations of toilets with less than 6 l/
flush are encouraged though it depends on where and when the property was
built, the drainage system installed, etc. For Britain, the Commission
notes that some toilets already in place before the new legislation can
use 7 or 9 l/flush."

Sounds to me like standardisation might be a good plan...

Yes, because the UK has so little rain....

--
Having swallowed the most amount of semen ever officially recorded Michelle Monaghan had 1.7 pints (0.96 liter) of semen pumped out of her stomach in Los Angeles in July 1991.

On 30/10/13 15:00, Tim Streater wrote:
On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 10:38:49 +0000 (UTC), Adrian
wrote:
Would that be the same Scotland who'll have no option but to sign
up to the Euro and Schengen if they wish to rejoin the EU (which the
SNP've sworn they will do)?

In article , Java Jive
wrote:

The same - it would be preferable to being part of a UK run by UKIP.

But these UKIP voters won't get that. They'll get Ed Millibroon and Co
if they vote UKIP.

they will get Ed Millibroon and Co if they dont vote UKIP

Or the equally pointless Camerdribble.


It is really a no brainer. Vote kip with a 20:1 shot of making a
difference, don't vote UKIP and 100% chance that nothing changes.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 14:28:06 +0000, Jethro_uk wrote:

Actually, if the EU want to standardise something, book sizes would
be a good place to start. Ever tried to pack a variety of books into
a trunk?

How about phone chargers ?

Phone chargers _have_ been standardised for a few years. Well, all
apart from Apple, who are "special".

In which case they aren't standard. The Nokia 5800 I had in 2009 wasn't
standard.

Yes, Nokia were the other manufacturer slow in standardising on micro-
and mini-USB.

But since Nokia are an absolute irrelevance these days...

On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 14:41:44 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

I disagree with harry about most things, but there was an interesting
quote on Twitter the other day, attributed to Mr Gorbachev. He
apparently cannot understand why European politicians are trying to
recreate the Soviet Union in Western Europe.

One suspects that the claimed attribution is false. Certainly, it
shouldn't be believed until proven. Link?

Suspect away dear boy, it's all the same to me. Link? Try:

http://www.twitter.com

A two minute google finds it on...
http://www.goodreads.com/author/quot...hail_Gorbachev
....and nowhere else. Nothing linking it to any context or other
information at all.

Smells lightly of haddock to me.

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 14:41:44 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

I disagree with harry about most things, but there was an interesting
quote on Twitter the other day, attributed to Mr Gorbachev. He
apparently cannot understand why European politicians are trying to
recreate the Soviet Union in Western Europe.

One suspects that the claimed attribution is false. Certainly, it
shouldn't be believed until proven. Link?

Suspect away dear boy, it's all the same to me. Link? Try:

http://www.twitter.com

A two minute google finds it on...
http://www.goodreads.com/author/quot...hail_Gorbachev
...and nowhere else. Nothing linking it to any context or other
information at all.

Smells lightly of haddock to me.

I remember that incident from years ago, yes it is true.

Others seem to think so too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUix04BqKd4

"Java Jive" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 08:17:57 -0000, "harryagain"
wrote:


"Java Jive" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 16:51:40 -0000, "harryagain"
wrote:

There are thousands of muslims landing in Lampedusa every month.

Link?

Thr EU wants to ship themNorth ie to us.

Link?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...pedusa-tragedy

Nothing there about the EU wanting to ship them north to the UK.

Why do you suppose our hospitals, education sytem and housing are all
stretched?

http://www.publications.parliament.u...onaf/82/82.pdf

Or if that's too hard for you to understand
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7215624.stm

I've posted before about the long-term effects of immigration. The
solution is tighten EU rules, not ditch the entire EU.

Are you so thick you can't find this stuff for yourself?

I shouldn't have to. If you wish to make controversial statements and
have them taken seriously rather than dismissed as just another
bigoted rant, at least back them up with reliable facts.

It's pretty self evident that if we have lots of immigrants they will
overload our services/housing.
Only half wits can't immediately see the truth of this.
Lots of socialists in denial.

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 08:19:20 +0000, harryagain wrote:

So they're just **** toilets.

Some are, yes. Some people do insist on buying the cheapest possible
things going, never mind the quality/TCO.

Don't confuse price with functionality.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 30/10/2013 08:22, harryagain wrote:


Why shouldn't a government do popular things?



Why do small minded people like you always think their views are popular?

Get a life and mix with people other than the ones in your club and get a
true idea of why you are hated.


Answer the question ****-fer brains.
Government are elected to do popular things.
If they don't they get unelected.
That's why UKIP is doing so well.
Are you so simple you can't see that?

"Java Jive" wrote in message
...
No reason at all why a government shouldn't do popular things, though
one hopes that rather than concentrate on mere popularity, they would
concentrate on doing what is best for the country, which may or may
not be popular at any one particular time.

But the fact that you've asked that shows that you've completely
missed the point I was making ... again.

On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 08:22:32 -0000, "harryagain"
wrote:

Why shouldn't a government do popular things?

Best for the country in whose opinion?
I think the collective mind of the population is far ahead of stupid
politicians.

"Java Jive" wrote in message
news
What is the worst thing that has happened in this country since? 7/7
probably, or the Marchioness disaster, or the people killed by storm
damage in 1987 and a few days ago, or the people killed on the roads,
or by avoidably by lung cancer, etc, etc? The EU has nothing to do
with any of these things.

On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 09:03:17 -0000, "harryagain"
wrote:

Many of them because of the EU.

We would be able to deport foreign criminals for a start.
We would not have all these stupid regulations for another.
We wouldn't have the expense of all this EU crap and basket case ex commie
countries to support
Not to mention them coming over here taking jobs, accommodation, education
and public facilities.

On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 18:22:33 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

It is really a no brainer. Vote UKIP, get Ed Millibroon and *no* EU
referendum. Vote Tory, get Cameron and an EU Referendum. It's the only
option.

I can't wait for the EU referendum. The reaction from people like TNP &
Harry when they realise that they really were in a minority all along
will be priceless. Just wait for the blame game to begin.