One of the benefits of being on a UKIP mailing list is such delightful
snippets as these

http://www.euractiv.com/climate-envi...to-news-531374

Less 'Part P', and more 'part-pee'..

"Further down, the minutes of one of the expert group meetings singles
out the following €œkey findings€�:

that €œtoilet seats/covers are not really related to the product
function€�;
that €œtoilet seats/covers are often sold separately€� from the main
€œproduct€�;
and that €œthere is a high variability in consumers choice for
toilet seats/covers€�.

Experts have agreed that two €œkey elements€� appear to affect the water
consumption of flushing toilets and urinals: their design and the user
behaviour. Regarding user behaviour and €œbased on the discussions with
stakeholders€�, the experts have decided to set the average flush volume
as "the arithmetic average of one full flush volume and three reduced
flush volumes".

Wow. I bow to the mighty EU! who would have known that! Or come up with
such a daring solution!

Or didn't they think that with most homes equipped with water meters and
spiralling costs, we shouldn't already not be flushing more than we had to?

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


--
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.

The Natural Philosopher scribbled...


One of the benefits of being on a UKIP mailing list is such delightful
snippets as these

http://www.euractiv.com/climate-envi...to-news-531374

Less 'Part P', and more 'part-pee'..

"Further down, the minutes of one of the expert group meetings singles
out the following ?key findings?:

that ?toilet seats/covers are not really related to the product
function?;
that ?toilet seats/covers are often sold separately? from the main
?product?;
and that ?there is a high variability in consumer?s choice for
toilet seats/covers?.

Experts have agreed that two ?key elements? appear to affect the water
consumption of flushing toilets and urinals: their design and the user
behaviour. Regarding user behaviour and ?based on the discussions with
stakeholders?, the experts have decided to set the average flush volume
as "the arithmetic average of one full flush volume and three reduced
flush volumes".

Wow. I bow to the mighty EU! who would have known that! Or come up with
such a daring solution!

Or didn't they think that with most homes equipped with water meters and
spiralling costs, we shouldn't already not be flushing more than we had to?

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


No ****...

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...

On 10/29/2013 01:08 PM, Adrian wrote:


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...

What ever! It's all negated by a burgeoning population, all too often
encouraged through taxpayer-funded incentives. Of course immigration is
a considerable factor too. Green deals and bags-for-life is merely
tinkering while Rome burns.

On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 13:35:14 +0000, Andy Cap wrote:

I notice you omitted this bit...
snip

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

What ever! It's all negated by a burgeoning population, all too often
encouraged through taxpayer-funded incentives. Of course immigration is
a considerable factor too. Green deals and bags-for-life is merely
tinkering while Rome burns.

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)?

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

I notice you omitted this bit...
snip

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

What ever! It's all negated by a burgeoning population, all too often
encouraged through taxpayer-funded incentives. Of course immigration is
a considerable factor too. Green deals and bags-for-life is merely
tinkering while Rome burns.

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),

But does involve transffering the least sucessful inhabitants of several
european countries from a place where their life is **** to do nothing
here, where life is infintelyt better on benefits, and their 12 kids
become not a horror of exoense, but a source of income?

sheesh, we have seen familes loading up shopping carts and walking
straight out of the supermearket without paying.

Straight into the car with E European plates and driving off.


legal external migration (which is already very strictly controlled)
or
illegal external migration (which is already... illegal)?

and unenforccable at OUR borders because of the requirement for free
passage beween european nations.

You can walk through a wood to get into the EU, once in its free passage
to the country of your choice.





--
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 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. Have you *any* idea how
fast the world's population is growing? Then add in the naturally
improving standard of living of the Third World and I think we have a
problem Houston! 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.
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.

On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 14:24:53 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

BTW, would your migration complaint be relating to intra-EU migration
(which doesn't affect the total EU population one tiny bit, of course),

But does involve transffering the least sucessful inhabitants of several
european countries from a place where their life is **** to do nothing
here, where life is infintelyt better on benefits, and their 12 kids
become not a horror of exoense, but a source of income?

Who's doing this "transferring"? Have you actually ever looked at the
requirements for a new EU migrant to receive benefits in the UK?

sheesh, we have seen familes loading up shopping carts and walking
straight out of the supermearket without paying.

Straight into the car with E European plates and driving off.

You're right! There should be a law against it!

legal external migration (which is already very strictly controlled)
or
illegal external migration (which is already... illegal)?

and unenforccable at OUR borders because of the requirement for free
passage beween european nations.

You can walk through a wood to get into the EU, once in its free passage
to the country of your choice.

Have you ever crossed a land border from a non-Schengen state into a
Schengen one? No, thought not. The last time I did (and that was quite a
few of them, just over a year ago), there was no shortage of border
guards with large guns, checking passports etc closely. Even within the
EU. And, yes, there are EU land borders that aren't Schengen.

BTW, you _do_ know that there are non-EU schengen states, don't you...?
Such as Norway and Switzerland - y'know, the ones the UK should "be more
like".

And did you know that even tourist visits from several non-EU countries
to the UK are _incredibly_ difficult and expensive to obtain, where
people from the same countries can work three months visa-free in
Schengen? I had a very interesting chat with a young Albanian lad, who'd
been picked up and taken for deportation within seconds of getting off
the NI-Mainland ferry.

Even the vaguest of unbiased glances shows that reality does not fit that
Farage idiot's rhetoric one tiny bit.

actually this is rather interesting. I have a full old fashioned flushing
toilet, but I do not notice big bills indeed being on a meter they fell.

I imagine the break even point is dependent on the number of people at home
and for how long etc.
One thing that has intrigued me though, is how do they calculate the
processing of the waste water? some people send all their waste down, others
divert grey water to other things etc, so it has surely to be a veryrough
and ready calculation.
Also can I bill the water supplier for all the damage and work needed to
remove lime scale from things?

Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
One of the benefits of being on a UKIP mailing list is such delightful
snippets as these

http://www.euractiv.com/climate-envi...to-news-531374

Less 'Part P', and more 'part-pee'..

"Further down, the minutes of one of the expert group meetings singles out
the following "key findings":

that "toilet seats/covers are not really related to the product
function";
that "toilet seats/covers are often sold separately" from the main
"product";
and that "there is a high variability in consumer's choice for toilet
seats/covers".

Experts have agreed that two "key elements" appear to affect the water
consumption of flushing toilets and urinals: their design and the user
behaviour. Regarding user behaviour and "based on the discussions with
stakeholders", the experts have decided to set the average flush volume as
"the arithmetic average of one full flush volume and three reduced flush
volumes".

Wow. I bow to the mighty EU! who would have known that! Or come up with
such a daring solution!

Or didn't they think that with most homes equipped with water meters and
spiralling costs, we shouldn't already not be flushing more than we had
to?

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


--
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.

Adrian wrote:

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

Yes if it worked! We all have come across toilets which don't work. My
childhood memories fail to register a high level 2 gallon toilet which
didn't. Personally I loathe the top mounted push button cisterns
currently being sold. I don't know of a woman with fingernails who can
use one without complaining and they frequently don't clear in one go as
the water flow is too slow/small. I would prefer that all toilets had to
pass a customer function test before being allowed to be sold. One of
the commonest topics of US conversations is "toilets I have blocked" and
I don't know of a US home without a toilet plunger. Heaven forbid that
we join the club.

UKIP seem to be the only party who are reporting the activities of our
EU masters. Why aren't the other politicians not representing us doing so?

On 29/10/13 14:32, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 14:24:53 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

BTW, would your migration complaint be relating to intra-EU migration
(which doesn't affect the total EU population one tiny bit, of course),

But does involve transffering the least sucessful inhabitants of several
european countries from a place where their life is **** to do nothing
here, where life is infintelyt better on benefits, and their 12 kids
become not a horror of exoense, but a source of income?

Who's doing this "transferring"? Have you actually ever looked at the
requirements for a new EU migrant to receive benefits in the UK?

sheesh, we have seen familes loading up shopping carts and walking
straight out of the supermearket without paying.

Straight into the car with E European plates and driving off.

You're right! There should be a law against it!

legal external migration (which is already very strictly controlled)
or
illegal external migration (which is already... illegal)?

and unenforccable at OUR borders because of the requirement for free
passage beween european nations.

You can walk through a wood to get into the EU, once in its free passage
to the country of your choice.

Have you ever crossed a land border from a non-Schengen state into a
Schengen one? No, thought not. The last time I did (and that was quite a
few of them, just over a year ago), there was no shortage of border
guards with large guns, checking passports etc closely. Even within the
EU. And, yes, there are EU land borders that aren't Schengen.


who said anything about going past border guards?

I walked from Germany to Austria and back years ago before all this
Schengen nonsense, without even SEEING the border. it was just a track
through some woods.

dozens of boats land illegally every bloody day. Its only when they sink
we get to hear about it.

BTW, you _do_ know that there are non-EU schengen states, don't you...?
Such as Norway and Switzerland - y'know, the ones the UK should "be more
like".

And did you know that even tourist visits from several non-EU countries
to the UK are _incredibly_ difficult and expensive to obtain, where
people from the same countries can work three months visa-free in
Schengen? I had a very interesting chat with a young Albanian lad, who'd
been picked up and taken for deportation within seconds of getting off
the NI-Mainland ferry.

he should have swum ashore

Even the vaguest of unbiased glances shows that reality does not fit that
Farage idiot's rhetoric one tiny bit.

you haven't listened to Nigel farage have you?


Its not illegal immigration: its legal immigration that is the problem

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

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

Yes if it worked! We all have come across toilets which don't work. My
childhood memories fail to register a high level 2 gallon toilet which
didn't.

Now why would anybody install, and then leave, a toilet that didn't work?

Personally I loathe the top mounted push button cisterns currently
being sold.

So don't buy one. They're not the only ones being sold.

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.

One of the commonest topics of US conversations is "toilets I have
blocked"

I bet you're fun at parties.

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

As filtered by the Daily Wail.

On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 15:15:00 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

and unenforccable at OUR borders because of the requirement for free
passage beween european nations.

You can walk through a wood to get into the EU, once in its free
passage to the country of your choice.

Have you ever crossed a land border from a non-Schengen state into a
Schengen one? No, thought not. The last time I did (and that was quite
a few of them, just over a year ago), there was no shortage of border
guards with large guns, checking passports etc closely. Even within the
EU. And, yes, there are EU land borders that aren't Schengen.

who said anything about going past border guards?

Umm, you did. Or, rather, you said it was OK to just walk through some
woods and you'd be laughing.

I walked from Germany to Austria and back years ago before all this
Schengen nonsense

Riiiiight. So that's at least 20 years since implementation, 30 since the
agreement was signed. Perhaps they were all part of the same empire at
the time?

dozens of boats land illegally every bloody day.

There should be a law against it!

Even the vaguest of unbiased glances shows that reality does not fit
that Farage idiot's rhetoric one tiny bit.

you haven't listened to Nigel farage have you?

Yes. The man's a raging self-obsessed ****wit.

On 10/29/2013 03:24 PM, Tim Streater wrote:

And these are MEPs, BTW, who we elect (apparently) to do a job and who
are getting their (inflated) dosh out of *our* taxes.


I bet 90% of voters couldn't name a single MEP because they're not
interested and anyway, being one of 26 nations means your vote is
virtually meaningless. Small point I know but neither has ANYONE EVER
voted to join the EU. We are meant to live in a democracy so it's
doesn't seem like to much to ask, to have a vote on the subject !

On 29/10/13 15:24, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Capitol
wrote:

UKIP seem to be the only party who are reporting the activities of
our EU masters. Why aren't the other politicians not representing us
doing so?

It's unlikely that UKIP is doing that. Since UKIP MEPs don't turn up to
committee meetings in Brussels to support Tory MEPs in protecting
Britain's interests against LibDem and other EU Socialist MEPs, they
aren't going to be in a position to know what's going on.


golly. Those poor tory and libe demn MEPS who cant stand up without UKIP
support..

Whats the point of turning up to deals already struck?

And these are MEPs, BTW, who we elect (apparently) to do a job and who
are getting their (inflated) dosh out of *our* taxes.


I bet you didnt even vote!
And they aren't elelcted to do a job., They are elected to nod sagely
and raise their hands before dashing off for a big meal in Le Grand Place.


--
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 29/10/13 15:33, Andy Cap wrote:
On 10/29/2013 03:24 PM, Tim Streater wrote:

And these are MEPs, BTW, who we elect (apparently) to do a job and who
are getting their (inflated) dosh out of *our* taxes.


I bet 90% of voters couldn't name a single MEP because they're not
interested and anyway, being one of 26 nations means your vote is
virtually meaningless. Small point I know but neither has ANYONE EVER
voted to join the EU. We are meant to live in a democracy so it's
doesn't seem like to much to ask, to have a vote on the subject !

I bet everyone can name at least one MEP.

Nigel Farage.


And Von Rompuy.


--
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 10/29/2013 03:42 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


I bet everyone can name at least one MEP.

Nigel Farage.


And Von Rompuy.


Yes OK. What I really meant was one of their own ! :-{

On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 15:33:47 +0000, Andy Cap wrote:

Small point I know but neither has ANYONE EVER voted to join the EU.

Well, apart from the UK in the 1975 referendum, of course. Which was 67%
in favour.

Oh, and Ireland and Denmark both also had positive referenda at about the
same time - but Norway narrowly voted no. Austria, Finland and Sweden all
had positive referenda in the mid '90s - Norway voted no again, but was
even closer. Nine of the 2003 accession states had positive referenda,
too, then Croatia last year.

So that's 16 of the current 28 members who did indeed vote to join the EU
- or 16 of the 22 who joined it post-formation. Only one's ever voted
against - with a high point of 53% against.

But - apart from that - what did the Romans ever do for us, eh?

On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 15:42:18 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I bet everyone can name at least one MEP.

Nigel Farage.

And Von Rompuy.

50% isn't bad, I s'pose.

On 10/29/2013 03:53 PM, Adrian wrote:

Well, apart from the UK in the 1975 referendum, of course. Which was 67%
in favour.

Oh, and Ireland and Denmark both also had positive referenda at about the
same time - but Norway narrowly voted no. Austria, Finland and Sweden all
had positive referenda in the mid '90s - Norway voted no again, but was
even closer. Nine of the 2003 accession states had positive referenda,
too, then Croatia last year.

So that's 16 of the current 28 members who did indeed vote to join the EU
- or 16 of the 22 who joined it post-formation. Only one's ever voted
against - with a high point of 53% against.

But - apart from that - what did the Romans ever do for us, eh?


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! 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.

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


My view is that there should have been a referendum for *each* of the
EU treaties, including accession under Grocer Heath, the Single
European Act, Maastricht, etc, because no govt has the right to alter
our constitutional arrangements without the peeps permission. We elect
them to run the country under the existing set up.


Couldn't agree more, though I'd prefer out. 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. One example was the
change to fix term parliaments. A major change and yet done on on a
whim by a couple of guys.

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

Well, apart from the UK in the 1975 referendum, of course. Which was
67% in favour.

Oh, and Ireland and Denmark both also had positive referenda at about
the same time - but Norway narrowly voted no. Austria, Finland and
Sweden all had positive referenda in the mid '90s - Norway voted no
again, but was even closer. Nine of the 2003 accession states had
positive referenda, too, then Croatia last year.

So that's 16 of the current 28 members who did indeed vote to join the
EU - or 16 of the 22 who joined it post-formation. Only one's ever
voted against - with a high point of 53% against.

But - apart from that - what did the Romans ever do for us, eh?

You're talking rubbish !

No, I'm not. You might wish I was, but that doesn't alter reality.

We voted to remain in the Common Market

The European Economic Community. There's never been anything called the
"Common Market".

And then the UK - both Westminster and MEPs - was internally and
integrally involved in turning the EEC into the EU.

On 10/29/2013 04:35 PM, Adrian wrote:

We voted to remain in the Common Market

The European Economic Community. There's never been anything called the
"Common Market".

Fair enough but it was a trading group, not a political alliance and we
were lied to, as we will be again next time.

And then the UK - both Westminster and MEPs - was internally and
integrally involved in turning the EEC into the EU.

They had no mandate to do so and refuse to give the electorate a voice.
How is that democratic?

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

My view is that there should have been a referendum for *each* of the
EU treaties, including accession under Grocer Heath, the Single
European Act, Maastricht, etc, because no govt has the right to alter
our constitutional arrangements without the peeps permission. We elect
them to run the country under the existing set up.

Couldn't agree more, though I'd prefer out. I think referenda should be
used far more in parliament too

Apart from the subtle detail that a referendum, inherently, isn't used
"in parliament", it might be worth remembering that the 2011 voting
system referendum cost about £75m. How many of 'em do you want?

On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 16:41:00 +0000, Andy Cap wrote:

And then the UK - both Westminster and MEPs - was internally and
integrally involved in turning the EEC into the EU.

They had no mandate to do so

The Tory manifesto, a couple of months later, talked about what a great
success it was for the UK. They then won that election, before ratifying
it shortly after.

http://www.conservativemanifesto.com...-conservative-
manifesto.shtml#resp

If that isn't a mandate, what - short of a referendum - is?

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 13:35:14 +0000, Andy Cap wrote:

I notice you omitted this bit...
snip

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

What ever! It's all negated by a burgeoning population, all too often
encouraged through taxpayer-funded incentives. Of course immigration is
a considerable factor too. Green deals and bags-for-life is merely
tinkering while Rome burns.

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 are thousands of muslims landing in Lampedusa every month.
Thr EU wants to ship themNorth ie to us.

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

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 14:24:53 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

BTW, would your migration complaint be relating to intra-EU migration
(which doesn't affect the total EU population one tiny bit, of course),

But does involve transffering the least sucessful inhabitants of several
european countries from a place where their life is **** to do nothing
here, where life is infintelyt better on benefits, and their 12 kids
become not a horror of exoense, but a source of income?

Who's doing this "transferring"? Have you actually ever looked at the
requirements for a new EU migrant to receive benefits in the UK?

sheesh, we have seen familes loading up shopping carts and walking
straight out of the supermearket without paying.

Straight into the car with E European plates and driving off.

You're right! There should be a law against it!

legal external migration (which is already very strictly controlled)
or
illegal external migration (which is already... illegal)?

and unenforccable at OUR borders because of the requirement for free
passage beween european nations.

You can walk through a wood to get into the EU, once in its free passage
to the country of your choice.

Have you ever crossed a land border from a non-Schengen state into a
Schengen one? No, thought not. The last time I did (and that was quite a
few of them, just over a year ago), there was no shortage of border
guards with large guns, checking passports etc closely. Even within the
EU. And, yes, there are EU land borders that aren't Schengen.

You don't suppose they stroll down th highway do you?


And did you know that even tourist visits from several non-EU countries
to the UK are _incredibly_ difficult and expensive to obtain, where
people from the same countries can work three months visa-free in
Schengen? I had a very interesting chat with a young Albanian lad, who'd
been picked up and taken for deportation within seconds of getting off
the NI-Mainland ferry.


I don't suppose these people get visas.
So where exactly did this alleged conversation take place? Albania?


Even the vaguest of unbiased glances shows that reality does not fit that
Farage idiot's rhetoric one tiny bit.

Even the vagest of glances at your response shows you just made it up.

On 10/29/2013 04:48 PM, Adrian wrote:

They had no mandate to do so

The Tory manifesto, a couple of months later, talked about what a great
success it was for the UK. They then won that election, before ratifying
it shortly after.

http://www.conservativemanifesto.com...-conservative-
manifesto.shtml#resp

If that isn't a mandate, what - short of a referendum - is?


I refer the member to the answer I gave earlier.

"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."

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 15:11:37 +0000, Capitol wrote:

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

Yes if it worked! We all have come across toilets which don't work. My
childhood memories fail to register a high level 2 gallon toilet which
didn't.

Now why would anybody install, and then leave, a toilet that didn't work?

Personally I loathe the top mounted push button cisterns currently
being sold.

So don't buy one. They're not the only ones being sold.

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?
Do tell.

"Capitol" wrote in message
...


Adrian wrote:

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

Yes if it worked! We all have come across toilets which don't work. My
childhood memories fail to register a high level 2 gallon toilet which
didn't. Personally I loathe the top mounted push button cisterns currently
being sold. I don't know of a woman with fingernails who can use one
without complaining and they frequently don't clear in one go as the water
flow is too slow/small. I would prefer that all toilets had to pass a
customer function test before being allowed to be sold. One of the
commonest topics of US conversations is "toilets I have blocked" and I
don't know of a US home without a toilet plunger. Heaven forbid that we
join the club.


You have to train your arse to cut the turds into small pieces.

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 15:33:47 +0000, Andy Cap wrote:

Small point I know but neither has ANYONE EVER voted to join the EU.

Well, apart from the UK in the 1975 referendum, of course. Which was 67%
in favour.

Oh, and Ireland and Denmark both also had positive referenda at about the
same time - but Norway narrowly voted no. Austria, Finland and Sweden all
had positive referenda in the mid '90s - Norway voted no again, but was
even closer. Nine of the 2003 accession states had positive referenda,
too, then Croatia last year.

So that's 16 of the current 28 members who did indeed vote to join the EU
- or 16 of the 22 who joined it post-formation. Only one's ever voted
against - with a high point of 53% against.

But - apart from that - what did the Romans ever do for us, eh?

I seem to recall that they keep having a repeat reforendum until they get
the answer they want.
(Ireland and Holland)

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...

On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 16:51:40 +0000, harryagain wrote:

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 are thousands of muslims landing in Lampedusa every month.

There should be a law against it!

Thr EU wants to ship themNorth ie to us.

You're an idiot, Harry.

On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 16:56:40 +0000, harryagain wrote:

And did you know that even tourist visits from several non-EU countries
to the UK are _incredibly_ difficult and expensive to obtain, where
people from the same countries can work three months visa-free in
Schengen? I had a very interesting chat with a young Albanian lad,
who'd been picked up and taken for deportation within seconds of
getting off the NI-Mainland ferry.

I don't suppose these people get visas.

There should be a law against it!

So where exactly did this alleged conversation take place? Albania?

Yes. Small town near Shkodra.

On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 17:09:02 +0000, harryagain wrote:

I seem to recall that they keep having a repeat reforendum until they
get the answer they want.
(Ireland and Holland)

With "they" being the governments of Ireland and the Netherlands, not
some mythical eurocrats.

On 29/10/2013 13:08, 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...

Roll on the EU standard turd


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 29/10/13 15:52, Andy Cap wrote:
On 10/29/2013 03:42 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


I bet everyone can name at least one MEP.

Nigel Farage.


And Von Rompuy.


Yes OK. What I really meant was one of their own ! :-{

isn't nigel one of our own?


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

One of the benefits of being on a UKIP mailing list is such delightful
snippets as these

http://www.euractiv.com/climate-envi...to-news-531374

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

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

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?
--
================================================== =======
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 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.
--
================================================== =======
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 16:51:40 -0000, "harryagain"
wrote:

There are thousands of muslims landing in Lampedusa every month.

Link?

Thr EU wants to ship themNorth ie to us.

Link?

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

Link?
--
================================================== =======
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