Mark Reckless was our local Tory MP and has defected to UKIP.

Not that Cameron is worried or anything, but the area is being swamped
with Tories!

We've had three letter from DC 'himself', dozens of Tory politicians
visiting the area - having previously ignored it, a glossy full colour
newsletter showing the two prospective Tory candidates and today teams
of canvassers who don't know the area having been bussed in from far & wide.

Is that the sound of puckering arseholes I can hear?


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

Business opportunity for you to advertise to fit "No Canvassers" signs
on doors?

--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

/ Business opportunity for you to advertise to fit "No Canvassers" signs on doors?/q

With free "Vote UKIP" sign thrown in?!

Jim K

On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 15:16:23 +0100, Robin wrote:

Business opportunity for you to advertise to fit "No Canvassers" signs
on doors?

And to un-install cordless doorbells...



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £30a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Saturday, October 18, 2014 5:22:46 PM UTC+1, Bob Eager wrote:
And to un-install cordless doorbells...

Replacing them with electric fence controllers?

Owain

Bob Eager wrote:
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 15:16:23 +0100, Robin wrote:

Business opportunity for you to advertise to fit "No Canvassers"
signs on doors?

And to un-install cordless doorbells...

I like it!

By taking the battery away for safe keeping ("batteries can be
dangerous, just look at all those exploding e-ciggies")? And of course
booking the job to re-fit it after 20/11 bg

--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
...
Mark Reckless was our local Tory MP and has defected to UKIP.

Not that Cameron is worried or anything, but the area is being swamped
with Tories!

We've had three letter from DC 'himself', dozens of Tory politicians
visiting the area - having previously ignored it, a glossy full colour
newsletter showing the two prospective Tory candidates and today teams of
canvassers who don't know the area having been bussed in from far & wide.

Is that the sound of puckering arseholes I can hear?

Good to see the smug lying *******s crapping themselves.
Power to the people.
Vote UKIP and give them a good kicking.

On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 19:19:44 +0100, Robin wrote:

By taking the battery away for safe keeping ("batteries can be
dangerous, just look at all those exploding e-ciggies")?

Not seen the story about kids and lithium button/coin cells?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...ester-29610570


--
Cheers
Dave.

On 19/10/2014 08:22, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 20:09:55 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:


"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
...
Mark Reckless was our local Tory MP and has defected to UKIP.

Not that Cameron is worried or anything, but the area is being swamped
with Tories!

We've had three letter from DC 'himself', dozens of Tory politicians
visiting the area - having previously ignored it, a glossy full colour
newsletter showing the two prospective Tory candidates and today teams of
canvassers who don't know the area having been bussed in from far & wide.

Is that the sound of puckering arseholes I can hear?

Good to see the smug lying *******s crapping themselves.
Power to the people.
Vote UKIP and give them a good kicking.

I would agree with you there, yet you're saying in your reply to Bill
Wright that UKIP's energy policy is full of drivel. Not exactly
consistent, are you?

Far be it from me to defend Harry, but you don't have to agree with
every policy of a political party to give them your vote. Its generally
a matter of which one you disagree with the least.

--
Chris

On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 10:23:36 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:

Good to see the smug lying *******s crapping themselves.
Power to the people.
Vote UKIP and give them a good kicking.

I would agree with you there, yet you're saying in your reply to Bill
Wright that UKIP's energy policy is full of drivel. Not exactly
consistent, are you?

Far be it from me to defend Harry, but you don't have to agree with
every policy of a political party to give them your vote. Its generally
a matter of which one you disagree with the least.

Yes, of course, but he's so aggressively anti-nuclear and pro wind,
solar etc that I don't see how he could possibly stomach UKIP's energy
policy, or do anything other than vote Green.

I'm sorry, but are you seriously expecting consistent thought from those
who blindly support a party who now admits their last published manifesto
was "drivel", and whose party leader denies having read it - despite his
name being on the introduction to it?

FFS, we've got some friends, one of whom is a staunch UKIP supporter, the
other leaning gently towards. The sheer lunacy of a gay couple supporting
the most homophobic party out there has been pointed out to them, but
they just seem unwilling to accept it.

UKIPs entire campaigning seems to be to play on fears without actually
worrying about reality or consistency. They really are the Daily Mail
party.

On 19/10/2014 10:36, Adrian wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 10:23:36 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:

Good to see the smug lying *******s crapping themselves.
Power to the people.
Vote UKIP and give them a good kicking.

I would agree with you there, yet you're saying in your reply to Bill
Wright that UKIP's energy policy is full of drivel. Not exactly
consistent, are you?

Far be it from me to defend Harry, but you don't have to agree with
every policy of a political party to give them your vote. Its generally
a matter of which one you disagree with the least.

Yes, of course, but he's so aggressively anti-nuclear and pro wind,
solar etc that I don't see how he could possibly stomach UKIP's energy
policy, or do anything other than vote Green.

I'm sorry, but are you seriously expecting consistent thought from those
who blindly support a party who now admits their last published manifesto
was "drivel", and whose party leader denies having read it - despite his
name being on the introduction to it?

FFS, we've got some friends, one of whom is a staunch UKIP supporter, the
other leaning gently towards. The sheer lunacy of a gay couple supporting
the most homophobic party out there has been pointed out to them, but
they just seem unwilling to accept it.

"We would rather the legal and religious endorsements of wedlock are
separate."

Isn't homophobic. Forcing people with deeply held religious beliefs to
perform gay marriage ceremonies isn't right.

UKIPs entire campaigning seems to be to play on fears without actually
worrying about reality or consistency. They really are the Daily Mail
party.

I think a lot of people will vote UKIP simply to give the established
political parties a good kicking. It's going to be a protest vote.

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 10:23:36 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:

Good to see the smug lying *******s crapping themselves.
Power to the people.
Vote UKIP and give them a good kicking.

I would agree with you there, yet you're saying in your reply to Bill
Wright that UKIP's energy policy is full of drivel. Not exactly
consistent, are you?

Far be it from me to defend Harry, but you don't have to agree with
every policy of a political party to give them your vote. Its generally
a matter of which one you disagree with the least.

Yes, of course, but he's so aggressively anti-nuclear and pro wind,
solar etc that I don't see how he could possibly stomach UKIP's energy
policy, or do anything other than vote Green.

I'm sorry, but are you seriously expecting consistent thought from those
who blindly support a party who now admits their last published manifesto
was "drivel", and whose party leader denies having read it - despite his
name being on the introduction to it?


No.

--
Adam

On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 10:51:21 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:

UKIPs entire campaigning seems to be to play on fears without
actually
worrying about reality or consistency.

I don't pay much attention to what the parties say they all lie and
bicker amongst themselves. But that is my impression of UKIP.

I think a lot of people will vote UKIP simply to give the established
political parties a good kicking. It's going to be a protest vote.

I think you are right. Trouble is people ought to be voting for the
candidate that they feel is going to work for and represent them the
best *not* the candidate that wears a particular colour.

Maybe this is why those MP's that have "defected" and been relected
under a different colour have been so. They actually care and do a
good job. not just kowtow to a particular colour of whip.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Sunday, October 19, 2014 10:51:21 AM UTC+1, The Medway Handyman wrote:
"We would rather the legal and religious endorsements of wedlock are
separate."
Isn't homophobic. Forcing people with deeply held religious beliefs to
perform gay marriage ceremonies isn't right.

I don't see why it's any different from forcing people with deeply held religious beliefs to allow guide dogs in their shops and taxis, or gay people in their B&Bs.

If they don't wish to comply with the law they have the choice to not be a priest, taxi driver or B&B operator.

However removing the ability of discriminatory religious groups to carry out that which should be the function of the state seems sensible.

Owain

On 19/10/2014 13:52, wrote:
On Sunday, October 19, 2014 10:51:21 AM UTC+1, The Medway Handyman
wrote:
"We would rather the legal and religious endorsements of wedlock
are separate." Isn't homophobic. Forcing people with deeply held
religious beliefs to perform gay marriage ceremonies isn't right.

I don't see why it's any different from forcing people with deeply
held religious beliefs to allow guide dogs in their shops and taxis,
or gay people in their B&Bs.

Neither do I, but that's also wrong.

If they don't wish to comply with the law they have the choice to not
be a priest, taxi driver or B&B operator.

Except that they were those things prior to the change in the law.

However removing the ability of discriminatory religious groups to
carry out that which should be the function of the state seems
sensible.

Agreed. I'm the most non religious person you could wish to meet. I
favour a system where any kind of religious propaganda should be banned.
'Imagine' etc.

However, these people also have rights to hold those beliefs. Why
should recent gay rights override long held religious beliefs?




--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 14:08:15 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:

However, these people also have rights to hold those beliefs. Why
should recent gay rights override long held religious beliefs?

Why _shouldn't_ people be allowed to burn suspected witches at the stake,
anyway?

It's really quite simple. If you don't agree with gay marriage, don't get
married somebody who's the same gender as you. Apart from that, it's an
utter irrelevance in your life whether two particular people choose to
marry each other or not.

On 19/10/2014 10:23, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 10:00:07 +0100, news
wrote:

On 19/10/2014 08:22, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 20:09:55 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:


"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
...
Mark Reckless was our local Tory MP and has defected to UKIP.

Not that Cameron is worried or anything, but the area is being swamped
with Tories!

We've had three letter from DC 'himself', dozens of Tory politicians
visiting the area - having previously ignored it, a glossy full colour
newsletter showing the two prospective Tory candidates and today teams of
canvassers who don't know the area having been bussed in from far & wide.

Is that the sound of puckering arseholes I can hear?

Good to see the smug lying *******s crapping themselves.
Power to the people.
Vote UKIP and give them a good kicking.

I would agree with you there, yet you're saying in your reply to Bill
Wright that UKIP's energy policy is full of drivel. Not exactly
consistent, are you?

Far be it from me to defend Harry, but you don't have to agree with
every policy of a political party to give them your vote. Its generally
a matter of which one you disagree with the least.

Yes, of course, but he's so aggressively anti-nuclear and pro wind,
solar etc that I don't see how he could possibly stomach UKIP's energy
policy, or do anything other than vote Green.


He cant vote green as he doesn't do green.
Even after all his subsidy grabbing "improvements" he still uses more
energy than an average family.

On 19/10/2014 10:36, Adrian wrote:

UKIPs entire campaigning seems to be to play on fears without actually
worrying about reality or consistency.


And the rest of the political classes seem to promising everything to
everybody but carefully wording such promises in a way that they don't
have to honour anything if they get into power.



--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 19/10/2014 14:22, Adrian wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 14:08:15 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:

However, these people also have rights to hold those beliefs. Why
should recent gay rights override long held religious beliefs?

Why _shouldn't_ people be allowed to burn suspected witches at the stake,
anyway?

I'm not agreeing with any kind of religious belief, I'm just saying that
people have a right that those beliefs are respected. What Voltaire
didn't say etc.

It's really quite simple. If you don't agree with gay marriage, don't get
married somebody who's the same gender as you. Apart from that, it's an
utter irrelevance in your life whether two particular people choose to
marry each other or not.

But it wouldn't be an utter irrelevance to someone with deeply held
religious beliefs, whose teaching said it was wrong.



--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 19/10/2014 16:08, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 19/10/2014 14:22, Adrian wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 14:08:15 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:

However, these people also have rights to hold those beliefs. Why
should recent gay rights override long held religious beliefs?

Why _shouldn't_ people be allowed to burn suspected witches at the stake,
anyway?

I'm not agreeing with any kind of religious belief, I'm just saying that
people have a right that those beliefs are respected. What Voltaire
didn't say etc.

It's really quite simple. If you don't agree with gay marriage, don't get
married somebody who's the same gender as you. Apart from that, it's an
utter irrelevance in your life whether two particular people choose to
marry each other or not.

But it wouldn't be an utter irrelevance to someone with deeply held
religious beliefs, whose teaching said it was wrong.

Wasn't the problem with allowing gay marriage more about the people who
held those beliefs wanting to prevent colleagues who didn't share that
particular view from performing the marriages?

On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 16:08:36 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:

However, these people also have rights to hold those beliefs. Why
should recent gay rights override long held religious beliefs?

Why _shouldn't_ people be allowed to burn suspected witches at the
stake, anyway?

I'm not agreeing with any kind of religious belief, I'm just saying that
people have a right that those beliefs are respected.

"Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose starts".

It's really quite simple. If you don't agree with gay marriage, don't
get married somebody who's the same gender as you. Apart from that,
it's an utter irrelevance in your life whether two particular people
choose to marry each other or not.

But it wouldn't be an utter irrelevance to someone with deeply held
religious beliefs, whose teaching said it was wrong.

They probably shouldn't get married to somebody of their own gender,
then, if they find it so offensive.

How about if somebody claims to find it offensive for people of different
skin colours - or even different social backgrounds - to get married?
Should the law ban that, too?

On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 16:16:11 +0100, Clive George wrote:

Wasn't the problem with allowing gay marriage more about the people who
held those beliefs wanting to prevent colleagues who didn't share that
particular view from performing the marriages?

Most probably.

And let's not forget that, as the law is are currently framed, it'd be
actively illegal for an Anglican clergyman to officiate at a gay wedding,
even if they wanted to. Utterly ridiculous.

"Dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 19/10/2014 10:23, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 10:00:07 +0100, news
wrote:

On 19/10/2014 08:22, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 20:09:55 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:


"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
...
Mark Reckless was our local Tory MP and has defected to UKIP.

Not that Cameron is worried or anything, but the area is being
swamped
with Tories!

We've had three letter from DC 'himself', dozens of Tory politicians
visiting the area - having previously ignored it, a glossy full
colour
newsletter showing the two prospective Tory candidates and today
teams of
canvassers who don't know the area having been bussed in from far &
wide.

Is that the sound of puckering arseholes I can hear?

Good to see the smug lying *******s crapping themselves.
Power to the people.
Vote UKIP and give them a good kicking.

I would agree with you there, yet you're saying in your reply to Bill
Wright that UKIP's energy policy is full of drivel. Not exactly
consistent, are you?

Far be it from me to defend Harry, but you don't have to agree with
every policy of a political party to give them your vote. Its generally
a matter of which one you disagree with the least.

Yes, of course, but he's so aggressively anti-nuclear and pro wind,
solar etc that I don't see how he could possibly stomach UKIP's energy
policy, or do anything other than vote Green.


He cant vote green as he doesn't do green.

Even after all his subsidy grabbing "improvements" he still uses more
energy than an average family.



Are you sure harry uses more energy than an average family?



--
Adam

On 19/10/14 13:59, Tim Streater wrote:

They also rely on ignorance. Seen on Twitter yesterday:

kipper: tories obviously pro-Europe otherwise why did Cameron sign the
Lisbon Treaty.


One of UKIP's benefits if if popular, they WILL light a fire under all
the other buggers who have grown complacent.

If UKIP achieve anything, it might be to scare the living sh*t out of
the other politicians to get their act together.

I guess if the EDF started winning seats it would have a similar effect,
but that's not something I'd wish for...

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 19/10/14 13:59, Tim Streater wrote:

They also rely on ignorance. Seen on Twitter yesterday:

kipper: tories obviously pro-Europe otherwise why did Cameron sign the
Lisbon Treaty.


One of UKIP's benefits if if popular, they WILL light a fire under all the
other buggers who have grown complacent.

If UKIP achieve anything, it might be to scare the living sh*t out of the
other politicians to get their act together.

A single seat aint gunna do anything like that.

I guess if the EDF started winning seats it would have a similar effect,
but that's not something I'd wish for...

On 19/10/2014 10:51, The Medway Handyman wrote:

I think a lot of people will vote UKIP simply to give the established
political parties a good kicking. It's going to be a protest vote.

It's all very well doing that in a by-election, and I've done something
similar myself, but do it in a general election and the outcome may well
be a mess that the voters will regret for a long time.

--
F

On 20/10/14 10:30, Jethro_uk wrote:
About five years ago, our local (Labour) MP turned up to support some
people protesting at the closure of a sub post office. The MiL mentioned
this as proof of Labours caring. My point that a better way of caring
would be to have not voted for the bill which caused the closure was
ignored, and when I asked what had precipitated the closure, I was told
"the Tories", although we had had a Labour government for 12 years at
that point.

I had a great-aunt just like that. Always voted Labour. Even after
they'd trashed the economy.

"F" news@nowhere wrote in message
o.uk...
On 19/10/2014 10:51, The Medway Handyman wrote:

I think a lot of people will vote UKIP simply to give the established
political parties a good kicking. It's going to be a protest vote.

It's all very well doing that in a by-election, and I've done something
similar myself, but do it in a general election and the outcome may well
be a mess that the voters will regret for a long time.

Unlikely that enough will do that to get a result
that anyone will be regretting for a long time.

Even if Labour gets back in again, its unlike that will be for long.

On 20/10/2014 12:24, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Jethro_uk
wrote:

About five years ago, our local (Labour) MP turned up to support some
people protesting at the closure of a sub post office. The MiL
mentioned this as proof of Labours caring. My point that a better way
of caring would be to have not voted for the bill which caused the
closure was ignored, and when I asked what had precipitated the
closure, I was told "the Tories", although we had had a Labour
government for 12 years at that point.

You talking about a corner shop post office? Those of course are all
franchises owned and operated by the shop keeper. So if it closes it's
probably because the shop keeper couldn't make it pay.

Or because the Post Office's Horizon computer system screwed up, made it
look as though the staff were thieves, and they were jailed or had to
close down.

Private Eye
http://www.private-eye.co.uk/section...ack&issue=1375

--
F

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Jethro_uk
wrote:

About five years ago, our local (Labour) MP turned up to support some
people protesting at the closure of a sub post office. The MiL mentioned
this as proof of Labours caring. My point that a better way of caring
would be to have not voted for the bill which caused the closure was
ignored, and when I asked what had precipitated the closure, I was told
"the Tories", although we had had a Labour government for 12 years at
that point.

You talking about a corner shop post office? Those of course are all
franchises owned and operated by the shop keeper. So if it closes it's
probably because the shop keeper couldn't make it pay. Meaning that
it's probably lack of support from the protesters themselves causing
the closure.


True.
But our Post Officeclosed because certain srvices were "taken away" from
them.
You couldn't even buy a TV licence or road tax any more.

"Jethro_uk" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 09:30:24 +0000, Jethro_uk wrote:

On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 12:20:49 +0100, Dave Liquorice wrote:

On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 10:51:21 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:

UKIPs entire campaigning seems to be to play on fears without
actually
worrying about reality or consistency.

I don't pay much attention to what the parties say they all lie and
bicker amongst themselves. But that is my impression of UKIP.

I think a lot of people will vote UKIP simply to give the established
political parties a good kicking. It's going to be a protest vote.

I think you are right. Trouble is people ought to be voting for the
candidate that they feel is going to work for and represent them the
best *not* the candidate that wears a particular colour.

Be nice wouldn't it ?

Meanwhile, back in the real world, people vote on prejudice and self-
identification, with absolutely zero understanding of the issues.

I am still amazed that anyone can tell me they are voting Labour because
they "look out for the workers".

About five years ago, our local (Labour) MP turned up to support some
people protesting at the closure of a sub post office. The MiL mentioned
this as proof of Labours caring. My point that a better way of caring
would be to have not voted for the bill which caused the closure was
ignored, and when I asked what had precipitated the closure, I was told
"the Tories", although we had had a Labour government for 12 years at
that point.

ISTR some research a while back which suggested that Labour voters simply
abstain when they are punishing their party, whereas Tories will happily
vote LibDem/Labour. Not sure what this tells us about the mental capacity
of the party supporters, but anecdotally I have met many more people who
claim they will "always vote Labour" than any other party.

Really it's all about branding. Somehow Labour have the "brand" of being
"for the working man", and that's enough. Doesn't really matter that
they're not. They have that brand.

Its not really very surprising given that there isnt really
anyone else much who those are likely to vote for if they
have decided that say Labour with Blair or the Brown one
doesnt appeal to them currently.

"ARW" wrote in message
...
"Dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 19/10/2014 10:23, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 10:00:07 +0100, news
wrote:

On 19/10/2014 08:22, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 20:09:55 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:


"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
...
Mark Reckless was our local Tory MP and has defected to UKIP.

Not that Cameron is worried or anything, but the area is being
swamped
with Tories!

We've had three letter from DC 'himself', dozens of Tory politicians
visiting the area - having previously ignored it, a glossy full
colour
newsletter showing the two prospective Tory candidates and today
teams of
canvassers who don't know the area having been bussed in from far &
wide.

Is that the sound of puckering arseholes I can hear?

Good to see the smug lying *******s crapping themselves.
Power to the people.
Vote UKIP and give them a good kicking.

I would agree with you there, yet you're saying in your reply to Bill
Wright that UKIP's energy policy is full of drivel. Not exactly
consistent, are you?

Far be it from me to defend Harry, but you don't have to agree with
every policy of a political party to give them your vote. Its
generally
a matter of which one you disagree with the least.

Yes, of course, but he's so aggressively anti-nuclear and pro wind,
solar etc that I don't see how he could possibly stomach UKIP's energy
policy, or do anything other than vote Green.


He cant vote green as he doesn't do green.

Even after all his subsidy grabbing "improvements" he still uses more
energy than an average family.



Are you sure harry uses more energy than an average family?

He just made that up. I have no heating bill for a start.
And very little transport energy costs. (Electric car)
I generate more electricity than I use.
I am getting in more PV panels too BTW all being well.
As many as our local transformer will stand.

The important aspects of UKIP are leaving the EUSSR and fixing the
immigration problems.
Much of the rest of their policies are bollix.
As you would expect with a single issue party.
There are a lot of weird people there. But no more than other political
parties.
At least they mean well.
I have been to various meetings, I can guarantee this.
Not like the crooks in the LIBLABCON parties.
(Think of the Royal Mail fiasco)
I just want to see them get sufficient leverage to force our departure from
the EU.
Or at least a referendum.
Because Cameron lies, he has no intention of having a referendum.
He can't get any concessions from the EU, it's what they are all about.
Socialist control freaks from basket case failed ex-commie economies.

On Monday, 20 October 2014 10:35:41 UTC+1, Tim Watts wrote:

I had a great-aunt just like that. Always voted Labour. Even after
they'd trashed the economy.

That was the CIA and the merchant banks.
Get your facts right.

The same thing is happening in Venezuela and they are using the NSA to do it. Your inability to know better is the reason that all the anti-terrorism measures are in force.

Someone in Central America thought it would be a good idea to ask United Fruit to pay taxes and as that company was a front for the CIA all hell broke loose, forcing a situation that led to unstoppable interference in Western politics.

It went completely out of control under George Bush and Tony Blair was unable to defend us from him. (Plus of course the little sodomite is now a millionaire. I can't imagine he tried very hard once his cornhole got used to it.)

Vote for politicians at your peril.
I had to laugh at that ageing punk, ****forbrains, belittling a comedian about his politics. He said his jokes weren't funny. I can remember that we had a vibrant music industry before him.

Cue some unfunny jokes about rotten music.

On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 19:38:10 +0100, harryagain wrote:

(of UKIP)
There are a lot of weird people there.
I have been to various meetings, I can guarantee this.

True enough...

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"ARW" wrote in message
...
"Dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 19/10/2014 10:23, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 10:00:07 +0100, news
wrote:

On 19/10/2014 08:22, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 20:09:55 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:


"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
...
Mark Reckless was our local Tory MP and has defected to UKIP.

Not that Cameron is worried or anything, but the area is being
swamped
with Tories!

We've had three letter from DC 'himself', dozens of Tory
politicians
visiting the area - having previously ignored it, a glossy full
colour
newsletter showing the two prospective Tory candidates and today
teams of
canvassers who don't know the area having been bussed in from far &
wide.

Is that the sound of puckering arseholes I can hear?

Good to see the smug lying *******s crapping themselves.
Power to the people.
Vote UKIP and give them a good kicking.

I would agree with you there, yet you're saying in your reply to Bill
Wright that UKIP's energy policy is full of drivel. Not exactly
consistent, are you?

Far be it from me to defend Harry, but you don't have to agree with
every policy of a political party to give them your vote. Its
generally
a matter of which one you disagree with the least.

Yes, of course, but he's so aggressively anti-nuclear and pro wind,
solar etc that I don't see how he could possibly stomach UKIP's energy
policy, or do anything other than vote Green.


He cant vote green as he doesn't do green.

Even after all his subsidy grabbing "improvements" he still uses more
energy than an average family.



Are you sure harry uses more energy than an average family?

He just made that up. I have no heating bill for a start.
And very little transport energy costs. (Electric car)
I generate more electricity than I use.
I am getting in more PV panels too BTW all being well.
As many as our local transformer will stand.

The important aspects of UKIP are leaving the EUSSR and fixing the
immigration problems.
Much of the rest of their policies are bollix.
As you would expect with a single issue party.
There are a lot of weird people there. But no more than other political
parties.
At least they mean well.
I have been to various meetings, I can guarantee this.
Not like the crooks in the LIBLABCON parties.
(Think of the Royal Mail fiasco)

I just want to see them get sufficient leverage to force our departure
from the EU.

Taint gunna happen.

Or at least a referendum.

Or that either. There may be one, but it
won't be because of anything the UKIP does.

Because Cameron lies, he has no intention of having a referendum.

We'll see...

He can't get any concessions from the EU, it's what they are all about.
Socialist control freaks from basket case failed ex-commie economies.

On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 19:18:41 +0100, harryagain wrote:

True.
But our Post Officeclosed because certain srvices were "taken away" from
them.
You couldn't even buy a TV licence or road tax any more.

You can buy both of those at most post offices, no problem at all.

Perhaps that particular PO had been downgraded to a sub-PO?

On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 19:38:10 +0100, harryagain wrote:

There are a lot of weird people there.
I have been to various meetings, I can guarantee this.

Yep.

On 20/10/2014 19:38, harryagain wrote:

... Cameron ...
He can't get any concessions from the EU

You know that? Can you let me have next Saturday's Lottery numbers please?

--
F

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 19:18:41 +0100, harryagain wrote:

True.
But our Post Officeclosed because certain srvices were "taken away" from
them.
You couldn't even buy a TV licence or road tax any more.

You can buy both of those at most post offices, no problem at all.

Perhaps that particular PO had been downgraded to a sub-PO?

Perhaps so.
A lot of it was done immediately preceding the Royal Mail sell/rip off.

Probably so it was more financially attractive to Camoron's mates to make a
big profit.

And sod the users who now have to make a fourteen mile jouney.

Next thing will be to do away with universal postal deliveries and we'll all
have to rent mail boxes like some third world country.

On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 07:50:04 +0100, harryagain wrote:

True.
But our Post Officeclosed because certain srvices were "taken away"
from them.
You couldn't even buy a TV licence or road tax any more.

You can buy both of those at most post offices, no problem at all.

Perhaps that particular PO had been downgraded to a sub-PO?

Perhaps so.
A lot of it was done immediately preceding the Royal Mail sell/rip off.

Probably so it was more financially attractive to Camoron's mates to
make a big profit.

And sod the users who now have to make a fourteen mile jouney.

Umm, the company that was privatised was a different one to the one
you're talking about.

Post Office Counters
Royal Mail.

But, hey, let's have a rant without having the first ****ing clue about
what we're ranting about.