On 09/06/2016 18:51, Tim Streater wrote:

I don't think TNP has said he wants to kill anybody. Neither has anyone
else on this ng. Are you becoming a trouble-maker, Den - y'know,
stirring it up? Are you BNP or a communist or something?


Both harry and TNP have stated that the refuges should be left to die
rather than rescue them from the Med. Do try and keep up.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 09/06/16 09:26, dennis@home wrote:
On 08/06/2016 20:39, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 08/06/16 18:47, Richard wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...

http://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/20...-eu-referendum




Oddly enough, my independent view is to vote out.
I wouldn't try to tell anyone which way to vote, and I wouldn't
criticise anyone for whichever way they choose to vote.

Nope. It all depenmds to what experiences one has been subjected and
whom one puts ones trust it, and that can be a very moveable feast.

Losers who want everything sorted out by people they want to trsut will
'see them right' will vote 'remain'.

Losers who hate "foreigners" and think that they will all disappear and
leave an idyllic little island will ignore everything else and vote
leave.


What on earth are you talking about Denise? No one is like that in the
real world.


Those who have managed to grow up and take responsibility for their
lives will vote leave.

Those who have grown up and can see the benefits in having diverse
peoples will look at the economic case and probably vote to stay.

Oh dear, you have swallowed the bait hook line and sinker haven't you?

Why don't you ask an Amerindian or Australian aborigine what the benefits
of European Immigration were?

The benefits for the Australian aborigines is rather obvious. Instead of
having to watch your kids die in a severe drought, they got a much
better result on that.

Its pretty much that simple.

Yes it really is that simple.

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 12:40:29 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"T i m" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 18:50:54 +0100, "Richard"
wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
snip

'The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do
Nothing'

What a load of ********. Unless of course you mean for someone to step
up
and kill some evil-doer.

I'm probably going to do something, I'm probably going to spoil my
paper as no one so far has said *anything* that I believe, believe
will make any difference (the vote will actually effect) and more
importantly, has convinced me beyond reasonable doubt (pretty
difficult with all the lies, BS and FUD being bandied about) that
deciding one way or the other is *the* right decision.

Why bother to show up at all if that is what you believe ?

Because I wish to retain the right to vote, should anything come up
where I have knowledge (based on facts) or an opinion either way.

You retain that right regardless of whether you
bother to show up for the referendum vote.

If I don't 'bother' it could be taken as laziness.

Who cares how someone else regards anything ?

If I turn up and spoil my paper (explicitly) it still gets
counted as 'an attendant', but with a spoiled paper.

And only those obsessed about politics even care
how many chose to do that and it has no effect
what so ever on your right to vote on issues that
you consider you do have a good basis to vote on.

X votes out (I'll not affect).
Y votes in (I'll not affect).
Z% attendance (I'll affect).
$ spoiled papers (I'll affect).

And whist we have joined and know what that brings (both good and
bad), don't know what leaving will mean as we haven't done so before.

But we do know that others have done fine outside the EU and
that Britain is much more economically significant than them
and did once do fine outside any block of european countrys.

But what of all the counter arguments?

Irrelevant to that comment you made there.

Given no one has the facts (especially harry) very few
can make what could be the best decision for *everyone*,
across all topics, with a single Yes / No vote.

And no single vote will make any difference anyway.

It *could*

Nope.

(albeit highly unlikely).

Impossible, actually.

So, I'll just have to go along with whatever happens
and just hope that it's *is* the best for all of us, at
least I won't be part of making the wrong decision.

So why bother to show up and spoil your paper ?

See above.

Complete waste of time even if you do a postal vote etc.

Only if you don't understand *why*. Hopefully you do now. ;-)

Nothing to understand, complete waste of time.

On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 13:25:25 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , T i m
wrote:

[snip]

But I'm not 'not bothering', I will bother to attend my local polling
station, offer up my card, take my paper, go into the booth and write
'SPOILED' across it, so that if anyone does read it they will realise
that it was spoiled intentionally, I didn't just make a mistake (by
putting a cross in both or neither etc).

So, I could ask my local councilor (that I didn't vote in for the same
reasons (I spoiled my paper)) to propose a change in the voting system
where you are obliged to answer correctly 10 simple political
questions and if you don't get them right you aren't allowed to vote
because you wouldn't have shown sufficient 'sills' in the subject
matter. Exactly the same way they hand out driving licences or nearly
any other indication that you are 'worthy' of such status.

That would be your MP, not your local councillor. Parliament has to
legislate to change the way we vote, which will be defined in the
various Representation of the People Acts (part of the British
Constitution).


Yeah, and that. ;-)

My point still stands ... we don't normally let untrained people make
important decisions, we expect them to have at least a rough idea what
is going on or ideally be 'skilled'. But for them to be able to get
even that 'rough idea' they have to be given, or have access to, the
real facts.

Even once they have the facts, they then need to skills, the
intellect, the time, and interest to see / understand the 'bigger
picture' and predict how their decision may impact not only
themselves, but their family, company, town, country or wider still.

I for one don't have such information and therefore have no ability to
make a judgment re what would be considered best by anyone able to
fully judge what is the best. I don't know anyone who does and those
who may get close, don't seem to have been highlighted by anyone as
yet?

So, I believe what actually happens is people (often a minority who
bother to make their mark) pick up on one topic and use that to
justify their decision (as is their right).

Not really incisive decision making though eh? ;-(

Cheers, T i m

On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 13:30:47 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , T i m
wrote:

[snip]

But I'm not 'not bothering', I will bother to attend my local polling
station, offer up my card, take my paper, go into the booth and write
'SPOILED' across it, so that if anyone does read it they will realise
that it was spoiled intentionally, I didn't just make a mistake (by
putting a cross in both or neither etc).

Doing this is useful feedback to the political class, actually. As is
the fact that voting is not compulsory, meaning that we get to see the
proportion of people who feel voting in one election or another is a
waste of time.

That was the idea and at least I can't be accused of 'not bothering'.

Westminster election turnout has dropped over the last couple of
decades. I take that to mean that people have - correctly - deduced
that our Parliament has become less relevant.

Yup. Look at the turnouts where real black / white choices are
available, where a vote really counts for something positive for the
majority (like survival).

Hopefully that will
reverse once we leave the EU.

So, we have people saying that 'we' are governed by 'un elected
bureaucrats yet I hear someone else explaining for any new law or
ruling to be put into action, many countries and especially the ones
it impacts the most have to agree to it? No agreement, no change.

Is that not true and if you think it isn't, can you prove it isn't?

Cheers, T i m

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , T i m
wrote:

[snip]

But I'm not 'not bothering', I will bother to attend my local polling
station, offer up my card, take my paper, go into the booth and write
'SPOILED' across it, so that if anyone does read it they will realise
that it was spoiled intentionally, I didn't just make a mistake (by
putting a cross in both or neither etc).

Doing this is useful feedback to the political class, actually. As is
the fact that voting is not compulsory, meaning that we get to see the
proportion of people who feel voting in one election or another is a
waste of time.

Westminster election turnout has dropped over the last couple of
decades. I take that to mean that people have - correctly - deduced
that our Parliament has become less relevant.

It's more likely to mean that most dont see that there is much
in it between the possible governments and that they dont
see that it would make much difference which is the government.

Hopefully that will reverse once we leave the EU.

Bet it doesnt in the unlikely event that Britain does leave the EU.

Most just aren't that interested in politics while ever things are doing
fine and they are.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
Losers who want everything sorted out by people they want to trsut will
'see them right' will vote 'remain'.

Losers who hate "foreigners" and think that they will all disappear and
leave an idyllic little island will ignore everything else and vote
leave.

And then strive for the rights of all 'minorities' to be limited too.

Little Englanders have tiny minds filled with prejudice.
Against everything but themselves.

Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh ?

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 09/06/2016 13:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/06/16 12:55, dennis@home wrote:
On 09/06/2016 09:39, The Natural Philosopher wrote:



Oh dear, you have swallowed the bait hook line and sinker haven't you?

Why don't you ask an Amerindian or Australian aborigine what the
benefits of European Immigration were?

Comments like that show you for what you are.

Indeed they do. Someone who doesnt let bigotry and prejudice prevent
them from facing the facts.

Amerindian and Aboriginal culture was wiped out by mass European
immigration.

They were wiped out by disease and murders not by mass immigration.

Neither were in fact wiped out at all.

The immigrants were a tiny minority when they started killing.

That isn't what happened in Australia.

And any culture that is faced with such will suffer the same fate ifg it
lacks the means or the will to defend itself

We have the means to defend ourselves but who do you want to kill first?
The Germans, the French, the Poles?
Maybe someone else here thinks you should go as they can trace their
heritage back ten years farther than you?


You may feel that is how history works, and we shouldn't oppose it. That
is your prerogative. But don't pretend that if we let unlimited amounts
of people who have very little idea of what we would term normal civic
behaviour flood this country, the likes of you or I will remain as
comfortable as we are.

Its very easy to claim the moral high ground with virtue signalling
cultural diversity claptrap. But frankly, only you care about he moral
high ground. I am more concerned about the technological high ground,
where I can defend a way of life that actually ALLOWS us to even
CONTEMPLATE mass immigration.

I don't see why we can't have both.
We have been managing it for a long time now.

On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 07:20:00 +1000, " Slomo"
wrote:



"Tim Streater" wrote in message
. ..
In article , T i m
wrote:

[snip]

But I'm not 'not bothering', I will bother to attend my local polling
station, offer up my card, take my paper, go into the booth and write
'SPOILED' across it, so that if anyone does read it they will realise
that it was spoiled intentionally, I didn't just make a mistake (by
putting a cross in both or neither etc).

Doing this is useful feedback to the political class, actually. As is
the fact that voting is not compulsory, meaning that we get to see the
proportion of people who feel voting in one election or another is a
waste of time.

Westminster election turnout has dropped over the last couple of
decades. I take that to mean that people have - correctly - deduced
that our Parliament has become less relevant.

It's more likely to mean that most don’t see that there is much
in it between the possible governments and that they don’t
see that it would make much difference which is the government.

I think that is the case with local / national government as the
difference between left and right has (in my uneducated and fairly
uninterested (for reasons you give later) opinion) is now just either
side of the same line.

Hopefully that will reverse once we leave the EU.

Bet it doesn’t in the unlikely event that Britain does leave the EU.

;-)

Most just aren't that interested in politics while ever things are doing
fine and they are.

Exactly, but like the weather and sport, gives a few people something
to talk about. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 22:58:01 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , T i m
wrote:

On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 13:25:25 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , T i m
wrote:

So, I could ask my local councilor (that I didn't vote in for the same
reasons (I spoiled my paper)) to propose a change in the voting system
where you are obliged to answer correctly 10 simple political
questions and if you don't get them right you aren't allowed to vote
because you wouldn't have shown sufficient 'sills' in the subject
matter. Exactly the same way they hand out driving licences or nearly
any other indication that you are 'worthy' of such status.

That would be your MP, not your local councillor. Parliament has to
legislate to change the way we vote, which will be defined in the
various Representation of the People Acts (part of the British
Constitution).


Yeah, and that. ;-)

My point still stands ... we don't normally let untrained people make
important decisions, we expect them to have at least a rough idea what
is going on or ideally be 'skilled'. But for them to be able to get
even that 'rough idea' they have to be given, or have access to, the
real facts.

I kind of agree, but as always one has to ask - who sets the questions,
who marks them?

We don't have to decide that here and now do we? ;-)

And how do I get to bribe them on behalf of my party?

;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 22:58:01 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , T i m
wrote:

On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 13:25:25 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , T i m
wrote:

So, I could ask my local councilor (that I didn't vote in for the same
reasons (I spoiled my paper)) to propose a change in the voting system
where you are obliged to answer correctly 10 simple political questions
and if you don't get them right you aren't allowed to vote because you
wouldn't have shown sufficient 'sills' in the subject matter. Exactly
the same way they hand out driving licences or nearly any other
indication that you are 'worthy' of such status.

That would be your MP, not your local councillor. Parliament has to
legislate to change the way we vote, which will be defined in the
various Representation of the People Acts (part of the British
Constitution).


Yeah, and that. ;-)

My point still stands ... we don't normally let untrained people make
important decisions, we expect them to have at least a rough idea what is
going on or ideally be 'skilled'. But for them to be able to get even
that 'rough idea' they have to be given, or have access to, the real
facts.

I kind of agree, but as always one has to ask - who sets the questions,
who marks them? And how do I get to bribe them on behalf of my party?

Interesting comment though "..we don't normally let untrained people make
important decisions..." I reckon that would disqualify about 3/4 of MPs in
Parliament, because you /don't/ need to have /any/ qualifications to be an
MP!

--
The New European Soviet - Mikhail Gorbachev
http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/globa.../soviet-eu.htm

WHY WE SHOULD LEAVE THE EU.
Master Investor, economist and entrepreneur, Jim Mellon, argues Britain is
better off leaving the "sinking ship" that is the European Union. If we stay in
the EU, within 3-5 years Britain will be forced to deal with the devastating
knock-on effects of a collapsing Euro and continental-wide depression.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuOIjK86c4o

On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 23:46:50 +0100, Martin Barclay
wrote:

On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 22:58:01 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , T i m
wrote:

On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 13:25:25 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , T i m
wrote:

So, I could ask my local councilor (that I didn't vote in for the same
reasons (I spoiled my paper)) to propose a change in the voting system
where you are obliged to answer correctly 10 simple political questions
and if you don't get them right you aren't allowed to vote because you
wouldn't have shown sufficient 'sills' in the subject matter. Exactly
the same way they hand out driving licences or nearly any other
indication that you are 'worthy' of such status.

That would be your MP, not your local councillor. Parliament has to
legislate to change the way we vote, which will be defined in the
various Representation of the People Acts (part of the British
Constitution).


Yeah, and that. ;-)

My point still stands ... we don't normally let untrained people make
important decisions, we expect them to have at least a rough idea what is
going on or ideally be 'skilled'. But for them to be able to get even
that 'rough idea' they have to be given, or have access to, the real
facts.

I kind of agree, but as always one has to ask - who sets the questions,
who marks them? And how do I get to bribe them on behalf of my party?

Interesting comment though "..we don't normally let untrained people make
important decisions..." I reckon that would disqualify about 3/4 of MPs in
Parliament, because you /don't/ need to have /any/ qualifications to be an
MP!

Exactly ... but it's no different to starting say a motorcycle club
and asking for volunteers from the few initial members for the
positions of social and financial sectary. *Someone* has to man those
roles no matter how unsuited they are or until someone goes out on
their own and does it all by themselves. The problem there is there
aren't the checks and balances that you get in the 'std' system.

Back on topic ... I think I'd rather take notice of someone *like*
Richard Branson, a businessman who is not generally considered to be
pure evil as the hope they would have a better viewpoint on the
'bigger picture' (being party to much higher level meetings than me)
and therefore more likely to backing the 'best thing' (as the chances
are no one choice will be 100% 'right').

I thought the above even before the flyer came though the door (today)
where I see Mr Branson is quoted as saying leaving the EU "would be
very damaging for Great Britain".

Cheers, T i m

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , T i m
wrote:

On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 13:25:25 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , T i m
wrote:

So, I could ask my local councilor (that I didn't vote in for the same
reasons (I spoiled my paper)) to propose a change in the voting system
where you are obliged to answer correctly 10 simple political
questions and if you don't get them right you aren't allowed to vote
because you wouldn't have shown sufficient 'sills' in the subject
matter. Exactly the same way they hand out driving licences or nearly
any other indication that you are 'worthy' of such status.

That would be your MP, not your local councillor. Parliament has to
legislate to change the way we vote, which will be defined in the
various Representation of the People Acts (part of the British
Constitution).


Yeah, and that. ;-)

My point still stands ... we don't normally let untrained people make
important decisions, we expect them to have at least a rough idea what
is going on or ideally be 'skilled'. But for them to be able to get
even that 'rough idea' they have to be given, or have access to, the
real facts.

I kind of agree, but as always one has to ask - who sets the questions,

There are no set questions.

who marks them?

The voters who decide if they like the result.

And how do I get to bribe them on behalf of my party?

You dont have to bribe anyone, just tell them who
the govt is and what that govt wants policy wise.

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 23:46:50 +0100, Martin Barclay
wrote:

On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 22:58:01 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , T i m
wrote:

On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 13:25:25 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , T i m
wrote:

So, I could ask my local councilor (that I didn't vote in for the same
reasons (I spoiled my paper)) to propose a change in the voting system
where you are obliged to answer correctly 10 simple political
questions
and if you don't get them right you aren't allowed to vote because you
wouldn't have shown sufficient 'sills' in the subject matter. Exactly
the same way they hand out driving licences or nearly any other
indication that you are 'worthy' of such status.

That would be your MP, not your local councillor. Parliament has to
legislate to change the way we vote, which will be defined in the
various Representation of the People Acts (part of the British
Constitution).


Yeah, and that. ;-)

My point still stands ... we don't normally let untrained people make
important decisions, we expect them to have at least a rough idea what
is
going on or ideally be 'skilled'. But for them to be able to get even
that 'rough idea' they have to be given, or have access to, the real
facts.

I kind of agree, but as always one has to ask - who sets the questions,
who marks them? And how do I get to bribe them on behalf of my party?

Interesting comment though "..we don't normally let untrained people make
important decisions..." I reckon that would disqualify about 3/4 of MPs in
Parliament, because you /don't/ need to have /any/ qualifications to be an
MP!

Exactly ... but it's no different to starting say a motorcycle club
and asking for volunteers from the few initial members for the
positions of social and financial sectary. *Someone* has to man those
roles no matter how unsuited they are or until someone goes out on
their own and does it all by themselves. The problem there is there
aren't the checks and balances that you get in the 'std' system.

Back on topic ... I think I'd rather take notice of someone *like*
Richard Branson, a businessman who is not generally considered to be
pure evil as the hope they would have a better viewpoint on the
'bigger picture' (being party to much higher level meetings than me)
and therefore more likely to backing the 'best thing' (as the chances
are no one choice will be 100% 'right').

I thought the above even before the flyer came though the door (today)
where I see Mr Branson is quoted as saying leaving the EU "would be
very damaging for Great Britain".

What matters is whether he can come up with any cogent arguments
for why leaving would be very damaging for Britain. And he can't.

"T i m" wrote in message ...


On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 07:02:31 +0100, "Richard"
wrote:

"T i m" wrote in message
. ..

On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 18:50:54 +0100, "Richard"
wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
snip

'The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do
Nothing'

What a load of ********. Unless of course you mean for someone to step
up
and kill some evil-doer.

I'm probably going to do something, I'm probably going to spoil my
paper as no one so far has said *anything* that I believe, believe
will make any difference (the vote will actually effect) and more
importantly, has convinced me beyond reasonable doubt (pretty
difficult with all the lies, BS and FUD being bandied about) that
deciding one way or the other is *the* right decision.

And whist we have joined and know what that brings (both good and
bad), don't know what leaving will mean as we haven't done so before.

Given no one has the facts (especially harry) very few can make what
could be the best decision for *everyone*, across all topics, with a
single Yes / No vote.

So, I'll just have to go along with whatever happens and just hope
that it's *is* the best for all of us, at least I won't be part of
making the wrong decision.

Cheers, T i m

Your choice.

Quite (thanks) and it is supposed to be a democratic process (one I
would like to retain, however broken) and part of that and in this
country right now is 'not bothering to even turn up is a legal right.

But I'm not 'not bothering', I will bother to attend my local polling
station, offer up my card, take my paper, go into the booth and write
'SPOILED' across it, so that if anyone does read it they will realise
that it was spoiled intentionally, I didn't just make a mistake (by
putting a cross in both or neither etc).

So, do I have no opinion on any of it? No of course I do but my
uneducated 'opinion' shouldn't be used to potentially negatively
impact England, the UK, Europe or the world.

Uneducated because I'm not interested? No, uneducated because like the
vast majority I'm not in possession of the *FACTS* and if I was, I'm
not sure I'm fully aware of the 'bigger picture' to then put those
facts into perspective.

So, I could ask my local councilor (that I didn't vote in for the same
reasons (I spoiled my paper)) to propose a change in the voting system
where you are obliged to answer correctly 10 simple political
questions and if you don't get them right you aren't allowed to vote
because you wouldn't have shown sufficient 'sills' in the subject
matter. Exactly the same way they hand out driving licences or nearly
any other indication that you are 'worthy' of such status.

Unfortunately, what you would get then is those with a particular
political motive or agenda making the decision without the vast
majority making their random mark diluting or impacting (with no valid
justification) the outcome.

I'll vote out because I'm old and don't like foreigners or change.

I'll vote in because I'm young and might want to work or travel freely
in Europe and appreciate that we need more young people working here
to pay the pensions of the locals.

But that's democracy for you. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

As I said before, your choice. However, I could not simply spoil a ballot
paper. As I see it, everything one does comes down to a choice of one, or
the other. Yes, no. Left, right. 1, 0. If we take your current situation,
assume that you are in a room with two doors. Behind one is a bomb behind
the other no bomb. In the room there is a bomb ready to explode. You only
have two choices.

On 09/06/16 20:03, Slomo wrote:
Why don't you ask an Amerindian or Australian aborigine what the
benefits of European Immigration were?

The benefits for the Australian aborigines is rather obvious. Instead of
having to watch your kids die in a severe drought, they got a much
better result on that.

Instead of not watching their kids die in severe droughts - being well
able to handle them - they got to watch them die of alcoholism and
suicide, which they were not


--
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a
kind word alone.

Al Capone

On 09/06/16 19:36, dennis@home wrote:
On 09/06/2016 18:51, Tim Streater wrote:

I don't think TNP has said he wants to kill anybody. Neither has anyone
else on this ng. Are you becoming a trouble-maker, Den - y'know,
stirring it up? Are you BNP or a communist or something?


Both harry and TNP have stated that the refuges should be left to die
rather than rescue them from the Med. Do try and keep up.

A rather unpleasant twist on what I actually said, which is *if* they
were left to die, there wouldn't be any.


BG (Before Geldof) 1 million Africans die from drought.

AG (After Geldof) 10 million Africans die, from drought.

Bog Geldof responsible for 9 million african deaths...

--
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a
kind word alone.

Al Capone

On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 07:03:47 +0100, "Richard"
wrote:

snip

So, do I have no opinion on any of it? No of course I do but my
uneducated 'opinion' shouldn't be used to potentially negatively
impact England, the UK, Europe or the world.

snip


As I said before, your choice. However, I could not simply spoil a ballot
paper.

And that is your call, but why not OOI? Just because you are given two
choices doesn't mean you are happy with either of them and shouldn't
(and aren't) forced to take either of them?

Now, if you have the information (that you trust) and the ability to
consider *all* the surrounding facts and consequences correctly (no
assumptions or just believing what you read in the press, on the Net
or from some guy down the pub) and come up with a 49/51% balance, then
I guess you could go with the 51%. Me, I'm more like 0/0% so the only
*logical* thing I can do is to spoil my paper and if anyone is
interested (and if enough of us did such on such occasions) they might
ask why.

As I see it, everything one does comes down to a choice of one, or
the other. Yes, no. Left, right. 1, 0.

I see it is that they are the choices you are given but not the only
ones you can take.

If we take your current situation,
assume that you are in a room with two doors. Behind one is a bomb behind
the other no bomb. In the room there is a bomb ready to explode. You only
have two choices.

You have three actually ... you stay where you are as that is the only
situation you actually know. Now, in the real world we (in the UK) are
standing in that room and are relying on *everyone* coming up with the
right choice (door with no bomb) when nearly all if not all of them
have no idea *what so ever* which door the bomb lies behind. ;-(

I don't like those odds or that deal so stretch them my way the only
way I can. ;-)

In my world we would all be given a bomb detection course or employ
some independent person, body or group to use all their skill and
training to detect the bomb free door for us. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

in 1492612 20160609 105413 T i m wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 07:02:31 +0100, "Richard"
wrote:

"T i m" wrote in message ...

On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 18:50:54 +0100, "Richard"
wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
snip

'The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do
Nothing'

What a load of ********. Unless of course you mean for someone to step up
and kill some evil-doer.

I'm probably going to do something, I'm probably going to spoil my
paper as no one so far has said *anything* that I believe, believe
will make any difference (the vote will actually effect) and more
importantly, has convinced me beyond reasonable doubt (pretty
difficult with all the lies, BS and FUD being bandied about) that
deciding one way or the other is *the* right decision.

And whist we have joined and know what that brings (both good and
bad), don't know what leaving will mean as we haven't done so before.

Given no one has the facts (especially harry) very few can make what
could be the best decision for *everyone*, across all topics, with a
single Yes / No vote.

So, I'll just have to go along with whatever happens and just hope
that it's *is* the best for all of us, at least I won't be part of
making the wrong decision.

Cheers, T i m

Your choice.

Quite (thanks) and it is supposed to be a democratic process (one I
would like to retain, however broken) and part of that and in this
country right now is 'not bothering to even turn up is a legal right.

But I'm not 'not bothering', I will bother to attend my local polling
station, offer up my card, take my paper, go into the booth and write
'SPOILED' across it, so that if anyone does read it they will realise
that it was spoiled intentionally, I didn't just make a mistake (by
putting a cross in both or neither etc).

So, do I have no opinion on any of it? No of course I do but my
uneducated 'opinion' shouldn't be used to potentially negatively
impact England, the UK, Europe or the world.

Uneducated because I'm not interested? No, uneducated because like the
vast majority I'm not in possession of the *FACTS* and if I was, I'm
not sure I'm fully aware of the 'bigger picture' to then put those
facts into perspective.

So, I could ask my local councilor (that I didn't vote in for the same
reasons (I spoiled my paper)) to propose a change in the voting system
where you are obliged to answer correctly 10 simple political
questions and if you don't get them right you aren't allowed to vote
because you wouldn't have shown sufficient 'sills' in the subject
matter. Exactly the same way they hand out driving licences or nearly
any other indication that you are 'worthy' of such status.

Unfortunately, what you would get then is those with a particular
political motive or agenda making the decision without the vast
majority making their random mark diluting or impacting (with no valid
justification) the outcome.

I'll vote out because I'm old and don't like foreigners or change.

I'll vote in because I'm young and might want to work or travel freely
in Europe and appreciate that we need more young people working here
to pay the pensions of the locals.

But that's democracy for you. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

I don't often agree with you but that's about the best post I've read on the subject.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 09/06/16 20:03, Slomo wrote:
Why don't you ask an Amerindian or Australian aborigine what the
benefits of European Immigration were?

The benefits for the Australian aborigines is rather obvious. Instead of
having to watch your kids die in a severe drought, they got a much
better result on that.

Instead of not watching their kids die in severe droughts - being well
able to handle them - they got to watch them die of alcoholism and
suicide, which they were not

Try that again in english, I dont read gobbledegook.

And they have only recently got to drink alcohol and have always
been into ****ing their kids and killing each other whenever they
felt like doing that and still do much more of that than the invaders.

On 09/06/2016 20:32, Rod Speed wrote:


"T i m" wrote in message

Snip

So, I'll just have to go along with whatever happens
and just hope that it's *is* the best for all of us, at
least I won't be part of making the wrong decision.

So why bother to show up and spoil your paper ?

See above.

Complete waste of time even if you do a postal vote etc.

Only if you don't understand *why*. Hopefully you do now. ;-)

Nothing to understand, complete waste of time.

It's not that difficult - it's simply an expression of feeling. And that
gets recorded and becomes a part of the election result. A large number
of spoiled votes could, for example, upset the legitimacy of the result.

It's not likely to make much of a difference, though - to do that maybe:

https://libcom.org/library/angry-not...ist-federation


Quite *why* people spoil their paper does of course vary - from a
thought through protest, through an honest mistake, to blind drunk. I
think Tim's reasoning is, the link above notwithstanding, pretty sound.

--
Cheers, Rob

On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 08:50:45 BST, Bob Martin
wrote:

snip

But that's democracy for you. ;-)



I don't often agree with you

That's OK Bob, we all have our own interests and opinions. ;-)

but that's about the best post I've read on the subject.

Well thank you very much for that. ;-)

I appreciate I know little about the subject (politics in general) and
part of that is because I don't think I can ever get to the truth so
there is little point trying (for the most part of what we get a vote
on and these days).

But that doesn't mean I can't or won't get involved as / when
something comes up that I 1) have a specific opinion about or 2) feel
my vote will actually count for anything and that it would be the best
for the majority. Because of those I make the effort and spoil my
paper.

Example. I got a parking ticket that I appealed and the appeal was
rejected. I still felt it was unreasonable so contacted my local
councilor who contacted the Council on my behalf and raised my case.
The fine was then overturned (later all fines imposed on that area
were refunded as it was generally deem unreasonable but that's by the
by).

So, did I vote for said councilor in the local elections because of
what he did for me personally (even though his office rang me
personally on polling day)? No, I spoiled my paper because I wasn't
sufficiently aware that his party politics were the best for 'us' (not
that it made any difference as he got back in by a large majority
anyway).

But as I said, this is a democracy and part of that is having the
freedom for me to do what I choose and I feel spoiling my paper is
still a vote of sorts. [1]

Cheers, T i m

[1] The motorcycle club I belong to has various geographical sections
in the UK and it often embarrasses me the monthly review of activities
for my section (London) is very thin, and even completely blank one
month! ;-(

So, the (volunteer) section leader prepares a rideout to somewhere of
interest and waits at a well known landmark in the section and no one
turns up. So, is that a reflection on him as a section leader,
disinterest in the proposed destination or an apathy of the section
members in general? *Maybe*, people regularly riding in 'London' don't
want to get back on their bikes at the weekend, compared with those
who live out in the country and who may not have to deal with some of
the most congested roads in the country again till Monday?

Maybe, people just trying to get on with their lives don't really have
time to get involved in the research and debate with things like the
referendum compared with the likes of harry who just sits at home in
his ivory soapbox counting the profit he has made off *us* via his FIT
payments. ;-(

On 09/06/2016 22:11, T i m wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 13:25:25 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , T i m
wrote:

[snip]

But I'm not 'not bothering', I will bother to attend my local polling
station, offer up my card, take my paper, go into the booth and write
'SPOILED' across it, so that if anyone does read it they will realise
that it was spoiled intentionally, I didn't just make a mistake (by
putting a cross in both or neither etc).

So, I could ask my local councilor (that I didn't vote in for the same
reasons (I spoiled my paper)) to propose a change in the voting system
where you are obliged to answer correctly 10 simple political
questions and if you don't get them right you aren't allowed to vote
because you wouldn't have shown sufficient 'sills' in the subject
matter. Exactly the same way they hand out driving licences or nearly
any other indication that you are 'worthy' of such status.

That would be your MP, not your local councillor. Parliament has to
legislate to change the way we vote, which will be defined in the
various Representation of the People Acts (part of the British
Constitution).


Yeah, and that. ;-)

My point still stands ... we don't normally let untrained people make
important decisions,

although we "let" them be parents...

we expect them to have at least a rough idea what
is going on or ideally be 'skilled'. But for them to be able to get
even that 'rough idea' they have to be given, or have access to, the
real facts.

Even once they have the facts, they then need to skills, the
intellect, the time, and interest to see / understand the 'bigger
picture' and predict how their decision may impact not only
themselves, but their family, company, town, country or wider still.

The paralysis of analysis...

It can be one of the hardest things to come to terms with if you are a
"detail" person. There are times where "no decision" is a decision, so
you just need to go with your best guess, a hunch, instinct etc.

I for one don't have such information and therefore have no ability to
make a judgment re what would be considered best by anyone able to
fully judge what is the best. I don't know anyone who does and those
who may get close, don't seem to have been highlighted by anyone as
yet?

Alternatively vote for the option you think will do you least harm ;-)

So, I believe what actually happens is people (often a minority who
bother to make their mark) pick up on one topic and use that to
justify their decision (as is their right).

Not really incisive decision making though eh? ;-(

Well its a personality thing as much as anything else. Some people find
it easy to make decisions faced with incomplete and possibly erroneous
data - they also tend to be good at not dwelling on the results and
living with whatever outcome they get.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 10/06/2016 00:03, T i m wrote:

Back on topic ... I think I'd rather take notice of someone *like*
Richard Branson, a businessman who is not generally considered to be
pure evil as the hope they would have a better viewpoint on the
'bigger picture' (being party to much higher level meetings than me)
and therefore more likely to backing the 'best thing' (as the chances
are no one choice will be 100% 'right').

I thought the above even before the flyer came though the door (today)
where I see Mr Branson is quoted as saying leaving the EU "would be
very damaging for Great Britain".

The difficulty is that "big" business sees lots of advantages in being
in the EU. Small and medium businesses seem to see far fewer advantages.
However its small and medium businesses that create most of the jobs and
GDP.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 09/06/2016 23:06, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 07:20:00 +1000, " Slomo"
wrote:

wodney alert

--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 10/06/2016 10:09, John Rumm wrote:
On 09/06/2016 22:11, T i m wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 13:25:25 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , T i m
wrote:

[snip]

But I'm not 'not bothering', I will bother to attend my local polling
station, offer up my card, take my paper, go into the booth and write
'SPOILED' across it, so that if anyone does read it they will realise
that it was spoiled intentionally, I didn't just make a mistake (by
putting a cross in both or neither etc).

So, I could ask my local councilor (that I didn't vote in for the same
reasons (I spoiled my paper)) to propose a change in the voting system
where you are obliged to answer correctly 10 simple political
questions and if you don't get them right you aren't allowed to vote
because you wouldn't have shown sufficient 'sills' in the subject
matter. Exactly the same way they hand out driving licences or nearly
any other indication that you are 'worthy' of such status.

That would be your MP, not your local councillor. Parliament has to
legislate to change the way we vote, which will be defined in the
various Representation of the People Acts (part of the British
Constitution).


Yeah, and that. ;-)

My point still stands ... we don't normally let untrained people make
important decisions,

although we "let" them be parents...

we expect them to have at least a rough idea what
is going on or ideally be 'skilled'. But for them to be able to get
even that 'rough idea' they have to be given, or have access to, the
real facts.

Even once they have the facts, they then need to skills, the
intellect, the time, and interest to see / understand the 'bigger
picture' and predict how their decision may impact not only
themselves, but their family, company, town, country or wider still.

The paralysis of analysis...

It can be one of the hardest things to come to terms with if you are a
"detail" person. There are times where "no decision" is a decision, so
you just need to go with your best guess, a hunch, instinct etc.

I for one don't have such information and therefore have no ability to
make a judgment re what would be considered best by anyone able to
fully judge what is the best. I don't know anyone who does and those
who may get close, don't seem to have been highlighted by anyone as
yet?

Alternatively vote for the option you think will do you least harm ;-)

So, I believe what actually happens is people (often a minority who
bother to make their mark) pick up on one topic and use that to
justify their decision (as is their right).

Not really incisive decision making though eh? ;-(

Well its a personality thing as much as anything else. Some people find
it easy to make decisions faced with incomplete and possibly erroneous
data - they also tend to be good at not dwelling on the results and
living with whatever outcome they get.


Very well put, John (and several others). It's good to see a more
sensible discussion developing.
There is not, will not and can not be sufficient information available
on which to come to a fact-based decision. Any decision must be
therefore be based on emotion (not usually a good idea) or a personal
assessment of the probability of certain outcomes and risk-benefit. It
seems that the majority of people are incapable of performing the
assessment needed for the second basis (because of either lack of
knowledge, lack of aptitude or lack of relevant training) so are
reverting to emotion. To quote a Dad's Army character: we're doomed!

I have worked with various European institutions and committees over the
past 10 years or so. The Commission, The Economic and Social Committee,
Parliamentary members, COREP, and others. In my (limited) experience,
many people are trying to do a good job but the system as a whole has
lost the plot. In particular, the Commission has become far too arrogant
and several non-parliamentary committees are simply talking shops where
the principle aims of attendees seems to be to claim the day rate and to
give a short inane speech so they are seen to have contributed to the
debate, this is especially true of the smaller/newer members.
I am fairly certain that leaving would cause a great deal of short term
economic pain and that it would not solve many of the problems that some
people complain about. However, on balance I am probably going to vote
"out" because I do not think the problems, especially the Commission,
can be fixed. BREXIT would cause powerful ripples throughout the EU and
may lead to: other MS leaving and internal restructuring. This should be
a "good thing". I will apologise to my kids if we leave and I'm wrong
about the risk-benefit balance.

"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 09/06/2016 20:32, Rod Speed wrote:


"T i m" wrote in message

Snip

So, I'll just have to go along with whatever happens
and just hope that it's *is* the best for all of us, at
least I won't be part of making the wrong decision.

So why bother to show up and spoil your paper ?

See above.

Complete waste of time even if you do a postal vote etc.

Only if you don't understand *why*. Hopefully you do now. ;-)

Nothing to understand, complete waste of time.

It's not that difficult - it's simply an expression of feeling. And that
gets recorded

So does those who don’t bother to vote.

and becomes a part of the election result.

So does those who don’t bother to vote.

A large number of spoiled votes

Doesn’t ever happen.

could, for example, upset the legitimacy of the result.

Not when it doesn’t ever happen.

It's not likely to make much of a difference,

No difference at all in fact.

though - to do that maybe:

https://libcom.org/library/angry-not...ist-federation

Doesn’t happen either.

Quite *why* people spoil their paper does of course vary - from a thought
through protest, through an honest mistake, to blind drunk. I think Tim's
reasoning is, the link above notwithstanding, pretty sound.

It isn't. It’s a complete waste of time.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In traweb.com,
lid wrote:

Losers who want everything sorted out by people they want to trsut will
'see them right' will vote 'remain'.


Losers who hate "foreigners" and think that they will all disappear and
leave an idyllic little island will ignore everything else and vote
leave.

And then strive for the rights of all 'minorities' to be limited too.

Little Englanders have tiny minds filled with prejudice. Against
everything but themselves.


You've been listening to Camoron again. You still can't understand
the bits about lower wages, more taxation, more unemployment for the
young and the older workers, higher housing costs, currency collapse and
poverty for the UK workers if they don't leave the failed EU now.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/06/16 18:51, Tim Streater wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:

On 09/06/2016 13:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/06/16 12:55, dennis@home wrote:
On 09/06/2016 09:39, The Natural Philosopher wrote:



Oh dear, you have swallowed the bait hook line and sinker haven't
you?

Why don't you ask an Amerindian or Australian aborigine what the
benefits of European Immigration were?

Comments like that show you for what you are.

Indeed they do. Someone who doesnt let bigotry and prejudice prevent
them from facing the facts.

Amerindian and Aboriginal culture was wiped out by mass European
immigration.

They were wiped out by disease and murders not by mass immigration.
The immigrants were a tiny minority when they started killing.

And any culture that is faced with such will suffer the same fate
if it
lacks the means or the will to defend itself

We have the means to defend ourselves but who do you want to kill
first?
The Germans, the French, the Poles?

I don't think TNP has said he wants to kill anybody. Neither has anyone
else on this ng. Are you becoming a trouble-maker, Den - y'know,
stirring it up? Are you BNP or a communist or something?

All of the above probably. Definitely 'disturbed' anyway


No, he's just inadequate!

On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 19:46:18 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 09/06/2016 20:32, Rod Speed wrote:


"T i m" wrote in message

Snip

So, I'll just have to go along with whatever happens
and just hope that it's *is* the best for all of us, at
least I won't be part of making the wrong decision.

So why bother to show up and spoil your paper ?

See above.

Complete waste of time even if you do a postal vote etc.

Only if you don't understand *why*. Hopefully you do now. ;-)

Nothing to understand, complete waste of time.

It's not that difficult - it's simply an expression of feeling. And that
gets recorded

So does those who don’t bother to vote.

No, those who don't bother show nothing other than they didn't bother.
By turning up you show you can be bothered but don't have an opinion
either way or don't have faith / trust in the system.

There should be a box for 'Unsure' and a field for comments.

snip the rest as it's just your argumentative opinion

Cheers, T i m

On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 10:13:42 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 10/06/2016 00:03, T i m wrote:

Back on topic ... I think I'd rather take notice of someone *like*
Richard Branson, a businessman who is not generally considered to be
pure evil as the hope they would have a better viewpoint on the
'bigger picture' (being party to much higher level meetings than me)
and therefore more likely to backing the 'best thing' (as the chances
are no one choice will be 100% 'right').

I thought the above even before the flyer came though the door (today)
where I see Mr Branson is quoted as saying leaving the EU "would be
very damaging for Great Britain".

The difficulty is that "big" business sees lots of advantages in being
in the EU. Small and medium businesses seem to see far fewer advantages.
However its small and medium businesses that create most of the jobs and
GDP.


Whist you are probably right, it's not just about job creation is it?
I was thinking someone used to dealing with stuff on an
*international* scale (like Sr R.B.) *might* have a better view of the
bigger picture, especially than yer local plumber (for example)?

Cheers, T i m

On 09/06/2016 14:05, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Brian Gaff wrote:
You cannot have an independent view, neigher can you be sure you are
right as nobody knows how the future will pan out either way. end of
story, this is why so many people are undecided. You might as well toss
a coin.

You could also ask yourself how you'd hope things would turn out if we
leave, and see if you can find any evidence to support or deny those hopes.

In no particular order:-

1) Will immigration be reduced to a trickle if we leave?

Unlikely. You will probably see less of a surge in additional migration
as new members join the EU though.

2) Will existing EU immigrants be sent home within a reasonably short time?

Probably not (if ever)

3) Will other immigrants who've not been here for over x years be sent
home too?

See above. Even if we talk about it, we seem particularly feeble at
actually doing it.

4) If we intend to continue trading with the EU, will it be possible to
negotiate a better deal than we have at present?

Depends on your definition of "better deal". In pure financial terms,
chances are it will be less good to start with - with some trading
partners attempting to "punish" us for taking our ball away, but
ultimately about the same in the end. After all, trade flows both ways
generally, so there is self interest on both sides to keep things
"resonable".

In terms of "better", it seems likely we will be able to make better
trade deals outside of the EU with new partners without the process
being stalled by other EU members that have thus far blocked deals
because they are counter to their own interests.

5) Will the human rights of UK citizens be protected?

Yes.

6) Will the working conditions of UK citizens be protected?

Yes, and hopefully not too much.

(look at the cluster **** that is the state of working conditions in
France. There is so much legislation protecting "the worker" that its
almost impossible for businesses to trade and operate effectively).
That's of no benefit to anyone in the end).

The fact that the large unions are much in favour of remaining in the EU
I see as a cause for concern - but that is prejudiced by my general
distrust of the unions - many of whom seem to see in the EU a way of
edging back to their positions of power and influence that they enjoyed
in the early 70's but which they lost due to the efforts of the
evil/great* Thatcher (* delete as appropriate depending on viewpoint).

7) Who is going to do all those jobs currently staffed by 'immigrants'?

Those same immigrants.

Even if one moved to a "points based" system for entry, you can be sure
that the powers that be will finesse the system to allow it to operate
as it currently does if they perceive it to be in our/their interest.

Big business will bleat about a "skills shortage" if they feel they need
to import labour for whatever reason (either lack of local skills, or
more likely, lack of local skills also prepared to work for peanuts).
Government will, as usual, roll over and give them what they want.

However you know more about staying in than going out so logically
this should be what you do at least for now.

Unless you find "in" particularly objectionable, and are willing to take
the risk that the unknown may turn out worse rather than the better you
hope for.

ISTM that even if we come "out", the powers that be will set about
negotiating ways of getting as close as possible to back in again, in
most respects bar official status. We would of course have "less"
influence over the direction of the whole enterprise, but since these
days that seems to be near enough zero anyway, that is not much of a loss.

It would probably result in the loss of several seats "reserved for
retiring UK politicians" on the EU gravy train. Which you may view as
"good" since it will deprive them of a cosy and unaccountable existence
at public expense - although take head, that will mean there are more of
them milling about back home looking to do what they do best, and there
may be no socially acceptable way of getting rid of them!

That is so. The status quo is just that. What may happen in the future
mere speculation.

Indeed. Can't argue with that.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 10/06/2016 11:09, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 10:13:42 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 10/06/2016 00:03, T i m wrote:

Back on topic ... I think I'd rather take notice of someone *like*
Richard Branson, a businessman who is not generally considered to be
pure evil as the hope they would have a better viewpoint on the
'bigger picture' (being party to much higher level meetings than me)
and therefore more likely to backing the 'best thing' (as the chances
are no one choice will be 100% 'right').

I thought the above even before the flyer came though the door (today)
where I see Mr Branson is quoted as saying leaving the EU "would be
very damaging for Great Britain".

The difficulty is that "big" business sees lots of advantages in being
in the EU. Small and medium businesses seem to see far fewer advantages.
However its small and medium businesses that create most of the jobs and
GDP.


Whist you are probably right, it's not just about job creation is it?
I was thinking someone used to dealing with stuff on an
*international* scale (like Sr R.B.) *might* have a better view of the
bigger picture, especially than yer local plumber (for example)?

Indeed he will - but will tend to be influenced by how that affects him
and his businesses. If you have dreams that your businesses will "expand
into europe" etc or if your business already has strong ties into
Europe, then the EU will make lots of sense to you.

Your local plumber probably does not care much - although will see less
new regulation and eco meddling in what he does, and so will prefer to
be less tightly bound to the EU. He may also feel less threatened by the
possibility of priced out of work by people operating without his costs
or overheads.

You are right, its not just about job creation - its about that, and
trade, and legislation, and red tape and loads of other things. However
its seems likely that if you just want to get on and run a local
business, you will have an easier time in a less heavily regulated
environment.

Now, ultimately which is better for the UK as a whole? Doing things that
will benefit the SMEs providing the bulk of the employment and wealth
generation, or doing what will benefit the larger enterprise that has
more visibility, profile, and a much louder "voice"? We need both, but
probably can't keep all of them happy all of the time!


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 10:09:21 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

snip

My point still stands ... we don't normally let untrained people make
important decisions,

although we "let" them be parents...

Yes, but I'm betting most those who may be covered by your comment
above didn't actually decide that either. ;-)

FWIW, we did. I'd not been a parent before (she had) but her time
clock was ticking away. So, we weighed up all sorts of things (work,
free time, money, child minding and responsibility to name a few) and
only went ahead once all those were sorted.

we expect them to have at least a rough idea what
is going on or ideally be 'skilled'. But for them to be able to get
even that 'rough idea' they have to be given, or have access to, the
real facts.

Even once they have the facts, they then need to skills, the
intellect, the time, and interest to see / understand the 'bigger
picture' and predict how their decision may impact not only
themselves, but their family, company, town, country or wider still.

The paralysis of analysis...

Yup. ;-(

It can be one of the hardest things to come to terms with if you are a
"detail" person. There are times where "no decision" is a decision, so
you just need to go with your best guess, a hunch, instinct etc.

Yup, and I think I am one of them, to some degree. I didn't go to my
Dads funeral for example (and we had a good relationship) because I
didn't know how I would deal with that (the funeral) or it's aftermath
(the memories of the funeral). So far I haven't regretted my decision.
I know he's gone but I didn't / don't want to grieve. (When round Mums
I'll still refer to any of his tools as 'Dads' because they are and
will always be so, even if they end up here someday).

I for one don't have such information and therefore have no ability to
make a judgment re what would be considered best by anyone able to
fully judge what is the best. I don't know anyone who does and those
who may get close, don't seem to have been highlighted by anyone as
yet?

Alternatively vote for the option you think will do you least harm ;-)

That is what Mum has done on her postal vote. 'Better the devil you
know' and it's something she has done on her own.

So, I believe what actually happens is people (often a minority who
bother to make their mark) pick up on one topic and use that to
justify their decision (as is their right).

Not really incisive decision making though eh? ;-(

Well its a personality thing as much as anything else. Some people find
it easy to make decisions faced with incomplete and possibly erroneous
data - they also tend to be good at not dwelling on the results and
living with whatever outcome they get.

How lucky they are (I think).

Unfortunately, our daughter has taken after me and therefore *is*
bothered by stuff (to the point where she has sought medical advice),
but sometimes it is counted as a virtue.

I was about to go in and present a new version of one of the Netware
CNE course modules and was 'quiet'. My boss noticed this and asked if
I ok. My team leader explained to her that I was about to present a
new course and (therefore, for me) it was an extra concern. Her reply
was two fold. 1) "He'll be fine" and 2) "Good, because if he's
concerned I know he will do his best". ;-)

And that's why you will rarely hear me (or our daughter) say 'thattl'e
do' or 'that's good enough'.

Cheers, T i m

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 19:46:18 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 09/06/2016 20:32, Rod Speed wrote:


"T i m" wrote in message

Snip

So, I'll just have to go along with whatever happens
and just hope that it's *is* the best for all of us, at
least I won't be part of making the wrong decision.

So why bother to show up and spoil your paper ?

See above.

Complete waste of time even if you do a postal vote etc.

Only if you don't understand *why*. Hopefully you do now. ;-)

Nothing to understand, complete waste of time.

It's not that difficult - it's simply an expression of feeling. And that
gets recorded

So does those who don't bother to vote.

No, those who don't bother show nothing other than they didn't bother.
By turning up you show you can be bothered but don't have an opinion
either way or don't have faith / trust in the system.

All it actually shows is that you don't value your time.

There should be a box for 'Unsure' and a field for comments.

And no one would give a damn about those even if anyone
was actually stupid enough to bother to collate them.

snip the rest as it's just your argumentative opinion

Corse yours is nothing like that, eh ?

On 10/06/2016 10:45, wrote:

I am fairly certain that leaving would cause a great deal of short term
economic pain and that it would not solve many of the problems that some
people complain about.

+1

(and it will create a bunch of new problems I am sure)

However, on balance I am probably going to vote
"out" because I do not think the problems, especially the Commission,
can be fixed. BREXIT would cause powerful ripples throughout the EU and
may lead to: other MS leaving and internal restructuring. This should be
a "good thing".

Indeed - ISTM it needs a major "shock" it it is to survive (and that is
a fairly large "if"). It may be our leaving would provide it. Us leaving
may be good for the EU. Alternatively, loss of one of the second largest
net contributor, may just tip the first domino over.

It may be that if we stay, we just get to see what a sinking ship looks
like on the inside.

I will apologise to my kids if we leave and I'm wrong
about the risk-benefit balance.

If nothing else it should teach them about making decisions in the real
world - you don't normally get to chose the starting conditions!

--
Cheers,

John.

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

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 10:13:42 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 10/06/2016 00:03, T i m wrote:

Back on topic ... I think I'd rather take notice of someone *like*
Richard Branson, a businessman who is not generally considered to be
pure evil as the hope they would have a better viewpoint on the
'bigger picture' (being party to much higher level meetings than me)
and therefore more likely to backing the 'best thing' (as the chances
are no one choice will be 100% 'right').

I thought the above even before the flyer came though the door (today)
where I see Mr Branson is quoted as saying leaving the EU "would be
very damaging for Great Britain".

The difficulty is that "big" business sees lots of advantages in being
in the EU. Small and medium businesses seem to see far fewer advantages.
However its small and medium businesses that create most of the jobs and
GDP.


Whist you are probably right, it's not just about job creation is it?
I was thinking someone used to dealing with stuff on an
*international* scale (like Sr R.B.) *might* have a better view of the
bigger picture, especially than yer local plumber (for example)?

Yes, they might. But they they can't actually list the reasons
why Britain would be worse out of the EU than in it, its much
more likely that it is just his opinion and nothing more than that.

On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 10:45:51 +0100, wrote:

snip

Well its a personality thing as much as anything else. Some people find
it easy to make decisions faced with incomplete and possibly erroneous
data - they also tend to be good at not dwelling on the results and
living with whatever outcome they get.


Very well put, John (and several others). It's good to see a more
sensible discussion developing.

Agreed. This is a discussion group after all (all be it not on this
topic) and should not just be the personal soapbox for rabid fanatics.

There is not, will not and can not be sufficient information available
on which to come to a fact-based decision. Any decision must be
therefore be based on emotion (not usually a good idea) or a personal
assessment of the probability of certain outcomes and risk-benefit.

Yup.

It
seems that the majority of people are incapable of performing the
assessment needed for the second basis (because of either lack of
knowledge, lack of aptitude or lack of relevant training) so are
reverting to emotion. To quote a Dad's Army character: we're doomed!

We are indeed. ;-)

I have worked with various European institutions and committees over the
past 10 years or so. The Commission, The Economic and Social Committee,
Parliamentary members, COREP, and others. In my (limited) experience,
many people are trying to do a good job but the system as a whole has
lost the plot. In particular, the Commission has become far too arrogant
and several non-parliamentary committees are simply talking shops where
the principle aims of attendees seems to be to claim the day rate and to
give a short inane speech so they are seen to have contributed to the
debate, this is especially true of the smaller/newer members.

Interesting (real world) insight, thanks.

I am fairly certain that leaving would cause a great deal of short term
economic pain and that it would not solve many of the problems that some
people complain about.

*Especially* the sort of immigration many complain about (that is and
will always be 'illegal').

However, on balance I am probably going to vote
"out" because I do not think the problems, especially the Commission,
can be fixed. BREXIT would cause powerful ripples throughout the EU and
may lead to: other MS leaving and internal restructuring. This should be
a "good thing".

Interesting though. 'A bit of a shake up'?

I will apologise to my kids if we leave and I'm wrong
about the risk-benefit balance.

They will never forgive you (especially if they fancied living or
working abroad). ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 10:16:34 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 09/06/2016 23:06, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 07:20:00 +1000, " Slomo"
wrote:

wodney alert

Ah, sorry. I don't mind responding to him when he's being him and only
the bits when he's not being 'him'. ;-)


Cheers, T i m

On 10/06/2016 10:46, Rod Speed wrote:


"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 09/06/2016 20:32, Rod Speed wrote:


"T i m" wrote in message

Snip

So, I'll just have to go along with whatever happens
and just hope that it's *is* the best for all of us, at
least I won't be part of making the wrong decision.

So why bother to show up and spoil your paper ?

See above.

Complete waste of time even if you do a postal vote etc.

Only if you don't understand *why*. Hopefully you do now. ;-)

Nothing to understand, complete waste of time.

It's not that difficult - it's simply an expression of feeling. And
that gets recorded

So does those who don’t bother to vote.


But do you not see the difference between spoiling a ballot paper and
not voting at all?


It isn't. It’s a complete waste of time.

It might be. It might not.

--
Cheers, Rob