In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
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.

Think you could fairly generalise that large businesses are more likely to
export/import than small ones. But small ones would still have to follow
EU regs where applicable. And most business owners don't like being told
what do do - even when that may well be in the interests of consumers and
or their workforce.

--
*All generalizations are false.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
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).

But France has different legislation to the UK.

This is the problem. Many in the UK look at the worst aspect of an
individual EU country, and say 'look - that's what will happen here'

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).

Odd they didn't persuade the last Labour government to repeal the Thatcher
legislation, then?

Unions don't have the same influence these days as once, because they
don't have the same percentage of the workforce as members. Because so
many that would once have been employees are now casual or freelance
workers, and a union can't do much for them.

My guess is if we vote out, the extreme right wing will get power. Plenty
of them in the existing Tory party.

And they have a great deal of interest in restricting both human rights
and employment rights.

--
*My designated driver drove me to drink

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 10/06/16 08:51, Slomo wrote:


"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.

I am sorry that your immigration status means you are unable to
comprehend complex English sentences, no matter how correclty formulated.


Perhaps you should go to wherever they speak your language.


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.

I love the mindless racism and xenophobia displayed here.
Typical of a remainer lefty****.



--
"What do you think about Gay Marriage?"
"I don't."
"Don't what?"
"Think about Gay Marriage."

On 09/06/2016 21:06, Tim Streater wrote:
In article . com,
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.

Oh, nice wriggle, Den.


He's repeated it again today so its not much of a wriggle except by you.

On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 20:31:41 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

snip

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.

Completely and utterly irrelevant.

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.

So says you.

So, make the 'Unsure' section a series of machine readable checkboxes
with some (10?) of the main topics that 'most people' seem to be
discussing.

In
Out
Other (shake it all about).
1) Because I want to remain in but want a tighter control on
immigration.
2) I want to remain in but I don't want to be forced to eat snails
3) I want to remain in but I want the money spent on the NHS.
..
..
6) I want to leave but want my son / daughter to be able to work
abroad.
7) I want to leave but want to be able to buy snails locally.
..
..
..


snip the rest as it's just your argumentative opinion

Corse yours is nothing like that, eh ?

Correct, it isn't. I'm not just saying 'No it's not', I'm offering
genuine arguments and reasons.

Like the option of a third box on the ballot paper. 'Of course' they
could implement something and that way the government (who are
supposed to be working for us etc) would then get a massive poll of
the reasons *why* people may otherwise not turn up and vote at all.
All the undecided's that otherwise wouldn't have a voice at all (at
the ballot box), now have a say.

'There are the two choices but if they aren't interesting enough,
which of the following might you be interested in .... '?

It would work just in the same way as when you are given second and
third choices.

A reply of 'They wouldn't do that' is not acceptable as you have no
way whatsoever of substantiating that. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 13:10:07 +0100, RJH wrote:

snip

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?

Either he really can't (in which case there is little point trying to
educate him further) or he can and is just being his argumentative
self.


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

It might be. It might not.

It's nothing about time of course, it's about democracy and retaining
the *right* to vote because you *can* be bothered.

Just in the same way you can have your departmental budget reduced if
you don't use it up by the end of the financial year. ;-) [1]

Cheers, T i m

[1] The only time it won't be used up is if the department manager is
paid a bonus on what funds remain. ;-(

On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 11:24:47 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

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.

Again, whilst that could very well be the case, someone like RB who
came from 'a small business' *might* be able to both remember those
days and be able to distance himself from his personal / current
position and offer a real / unbiased overview?

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.

But at the same time there will be say coarse fishermen who maybe
happy the EU have been looking out for them re the control of
poisonous chemicals as used by plumbers as the local waterways are now
filled with fish again?

He may also feel less threatened by the
possibility of priced out of work by people operating without his costs
or overheads.

Unfortunately that's the way it works these days (but still a valid
fear for him etc).

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.

Possibly, but how do you (or I) judge those things that are
unnecessarily restrictive versus those things that are 'for our own
good'?

How may people didn't wear a seatbelt all the time until they were
forced to? I'm not saying all the restrictions are for the best for
everyone ... I liked real Creosote and Nitromoors for example but
maybe 'Jo public' could hurt themselves or the environment (which we
all have to then suffer).

If you don't speed then you won't be caught speeding so the cameras
won't be an issue to you. ;-)

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!

Quite, and once again demonstrating that the granularity of an In/Out
vote is too low.

In theory that could already be covered with yet another unknown and
that is any Exit deal we negotiate. Being as there is a good chance
these are already known and being discussed, they could form a part of
the 'Other' sub options on the ballot paper?

..
..
..
6) 'Out as long as we retain the right to freedom of movement' (which
I think isn't under threat in any case)?

Cheers, T i m

On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 16:31:28 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

snip

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)?

Only where it relates to *his* specific interests.

Not necessarily. Some people do have the ability to remove themselves
from their 9to5 and speak from experience over many years and levels.

Cheers, T i m

On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 11:33:41 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

snip

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


And that seems to have happened to quite a few trying to flee trouble
and find safety it seems. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

On 10/06/16 16:33, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , John
Rumm wrote:

(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).

And Our Dave wants that here.

You would have thought that the Left would have learnt from watching the
demise of the car industry, the coal industry and now the steel industry
that 'protecting workers rights' beyond a given point is pointless in a
global market. The jobs just move to another country. Or to a robot.



--
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign,
that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."

Jonathan Swift.

On 10/06/16 16:31, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , 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)?

Only where it relates to *his* specific interests.

And BTW many consider him to be pure evil.


--
The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On 10/06/16 16:32, dennis@home wrote:
On 09/06/2016 21:06, Tim Streater wrote:
In article . com,
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.

Oh, nice wriggle, Den.


He's repeated it again today so its not much of a wriggle except by you.

Once again, you twist something to make a point.

I never said 'should'

I said 'if...then...'


I don't presume - unlike lefty****s - to pronounce moral judgements. If
you want to bend over and get buttraped by other cultures on the grounds
that they had it tougher than you, that's your decision. It isn't
however, mine.


--
The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On 10/06/2016 13:29, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
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).

But France has different legislation to the UK.

Indeed it does...

It also has a very different make-up of workforce from here. The UK is
unrivalled anywhere in the EU for its flexible workforce (i.e. temps,
agency workers, freelancers, consultants, contractors etc as well as a
well skilled permanent workforce) and a legislative framework that
allows it to operate.

This is the problem. Many in the UK look at the worst aspect of an
individual EU country, and say 'look - that's what will happen here'

I was not suggesting that the worse excesses will necessarily come here.
However where you have legislation affecting workers being generated by
a club where all the other members have a workforce and working
traditions different to us, it should be no surprise that the rules they
concoct don't necessarily fit well with the UK way of operating.

Look at things like the EU working time directive or agency workers
legislation. Due to poor drafting or lack of basic understanding of how
our workforce operates, it manages to sweep loads of small consultancies
and business up in a net of red tape, even though they have no desire or
need to be "protected".

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).

Odd they didn't persuade the last Labour government to repeal the Thatcher
legislation, then?

Presumably not through lack of desire, but through a government that
even notionally left leaning implicitly recognised they were much needed
reforms and they would be unwise to rewind the clock.

Now comrade Corbyn is notionally in charge, we can see renewed interest
in that.

Unions don't have the same influence these days as once, because they
don't have the same percentage of the workforce as members. Because so
many that would once have been employees are now casual or freelance
workers, and a union can't do much for them.

There are trade bodies etc for freelancers should they need support with
areas outside of their skill set, but the need for traditional
collective bargaining is significantly less obviously.

My guess is if we vote out, the extreme right wing will get power. Plenty
of them in the existing Tory party.

I think the threat of the extreme right is rising all over Europe,
something needs to give, and that means radical reform of the EU. We are
not going to achieve that inside it. We may however kick it hard enough
to start the process by leaving.

And they have a great deal of interest in restricting both human rights
and employment rights.

I would say our current record on both has a resonable balance at the
moment. Based on their input so far, ISTM that the EU can offer nothing
to improve the situation.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

"RJH" wrote in message
...
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?

Only in the sense that the individual who shows up in person
and deliberately spoils the ballot paper is just wasting its time.

Its not as if the deliberately spoiled ballot paper is
explicitly recorded so anyone looking at the stats
can see how many of those there are and how many
were spoiled accidentally by those who don’t
understand what the law requires for the vote to
be valid or were just drunk, careless or left their
reading glasses at home by accident etc.

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

It might be. It might not.

It is always a complete waste of time because
no one ever does anything different because of
the number of spoiled ballot papers that are
seen in a particular election or even ballot box.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
John Rumm wrote

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.

Think you could fairly generalise that large businesses
are more likely to export/import than small ones.

That isnt so true of agriculture.

But small ones would still have to follow EU regs where applicable.
And most business owners don't like being told what do do - even when
that may well be in the interests of consumers and or their workforce.

Yes, they prefer to decide that stuff for themselves and they are MUCH
better at that than some failed politician in Brussels can ever be.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
John Rumm wrote

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).

But France has different legislation to the UK.

This is the problem. Many in the UK look at the worst aspect of an
individual EU country, and say 'look - that's what will happen here'

Particularly those into FUD.

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).

Odd they didn't persuade the last Labour government
to repeal the Thatcher legislation, then?

Not odd at all. Blair essentially made an obscene gesture in their
general direction and wasn’t interested in what they wanted. His
govt was much more right wing than any previous Labour govt.

Unions don't have the same influence these days as once, because
they don't have the same percentage of the workforce as members.
Because so many that would once have been employees are now
casual or freelance workers, and a union can't do much for them.

And because many of the industrys that were heavily unionised
are nothing like what they used to be, particularly in manufacturing.
It is always going to be much harder to unionise the service sector.

My guess is if we vote out, the extreme right wing will get power.

No reason why it should. UKIP couldn’t even get more than a
refugee from the Torys elected to Westminster and that one
would have held his seat regardless of what party he was in.

And while 18% did vote for UKIP in the last election, that
wouldn’t happen if Britain was out of the EU, the absolute
vast bulk of those voters would go back to voting for
whichever of the two majors they had preferred in the
past with quite a few of the previous Labour voters
voting Tory while ever that fool Corbyn is running Labour.

Plenty of them in the existing Tory party.

Sure, but they wouldn’t have more influence in the Tory party
with Britain out of the EU. Boris very likely will replace Cameron,
particularly if Britain does leave the EU, but he isnt particularly
extreme right wing, more just another political clown. I can't
see him being stupid enough to kick all the foreigners out etc,
particularly given that his ancestors are rather more recently
foreigners than many of the other Torys.

And they have a great deal of interest in restricting
both human rights and employment rights.

Oh bull****. It was in fact Churchill who was personally
responsible for Britain getting involved in human rights
after the war and he is in fact one of the more extreme
right wing the Torys had in the 20th century apart from
Thatcher. Even Maggie wasn’t into restricting human
rights and employment rights.

On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 04:53:53 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"RJH" wrote in message
snip

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

Only in the sense that the individual who shows up in person
and deliberately spoils the ballot paper is just wasting its time.

But that's not the point / question. If it were me doing the spoiling
I can choose *exactly* how I spend my time and if it's something I
want, hell even get enjoyment out of it's not wasting any time.

Ok, now we can only have got that straight (to anyone other than a
complete moron), can you see the difference between someone attending
the polling station and spoiling their paper and those not attending
at all?

Its not as if the deliberately spoiled ballot paper is
explicitly recorded so anyone looking at the stats

Yes it is.

can see how many of those there are and how many
were spoiled accidentally by those who don’t
understand what the law requires for the vote to
be valid or were just drunk, careless or left their
reading glasses at home by accident etc.

Quite, they all just count as someone attending, taking a ballot
paper, marking it (or not), placing it in the box and when counted,
counted as the number of ballot papers submitted. IT IS COUNTED.

Completely *different* to not attending, not being signed in, not
taking a ballot paper, not filling it in, not putting it in the box
and it not being later counted.

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

It might be. It might not.

It is always a complete waste of time because
no one ever does anything different because of
the number of spoiled ballot papers that are
seen in a particular election or even ballot box.

Whoosh.

Any spoiled papers are 'counted' and if the number is great enough you
can be sure they would look into it to see if there was a pattern.

You *know* nothing different so the only answer you can give to that
will be your remote, non native and often wildly bizarre 'opinion'.
;-)

Cheers, T i m

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 10/06/16 08:51, Slomo wrote:


"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.

I am sorry that your immigration status means you are unable to comprehend
complex English sentences, no matter how correclty formulated.


Perhaps you should go to wherever they speak your language.


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.

I love the mindless racism

No racism there, just basic statistics.

and xenophobia displayed here.

No phobia there at all, just basic statistics.

Typical of a remainer lefty****.

I'm actually a righty**** and couldnt care less if Britain
leaves or stays, because I dont believe it will make any
real difference what Britain does in that regard. Britain
will do fine whatever it chooses to do and will just see
a bit of the detail change on who decides policy etc.

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 13:10:07 +0100, RJH wrote:

snip

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?

Either he really can't (in which case there is little point trying to
educate him further) or he can and is just being his argumentative
self.

Corse you never ever argue about anything at all, eh ?

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

It might be. It might not.

It's nothing about time of course, it's about democracy

Spoiling ballot papers isnt.

and retaining the *right* to vote because you *can* be bothered.

You spoiling the ballot paper deliberately instead of not bothering
to vote will have no effect what so ever on your *right* to vote.

Just in the same way you can have your departmental budget reduced if
you don't use it up by the end of the financial year. ;-) [1]

Voting doesn't work like that.

[1] The only time it won't be used up is if the department manager is
paid a bonus on what funds remain. ;-(

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 04:53:53 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"RJH" wrote in message
snip

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

Only in the sense that the individual who shows up in person
and deliberately spoils the ballot paper is just wasting its time.

But that's not the point / question. If it were me doing the spoiling
I can choose *exactly* how I spend my time and if it's something I
want, hell even get enjoyment out of it's not wasting any time.

You'd have to be rather weird to actually enjoy deliberately
spoiling a ballot paper that no one but the scrutineer will ever
see. If that is the situation with you, you could try getting a life.

Ok, now we can only have got that straight (to anyone other than a
complete moron), can you see the difference between someone attending
the polling station and spoiling their paper and those not attending at
all?

Not in the sense of having any effect what so ever the political system.

Its not as if the deliberately spoiled ballot paper is
explicitly recorded so anyone looking at the stats

Yes it is.

No it is not with the DELIBERATELY as opposed to accidentally.

can see how many of those there are and how many
were spoiled accidentally by those who don't
understand what the law requires for the vote
to be valid or were just drunk, careless or left
their reading glasses at home by accident etc.

Quite, they all just count as someone attending, taking a ballot
paper, marking it (or not), placing it in the box and when counted,
counted as the number of ballot papers submitted. IT IS COUNTED.

But no count is made of who DELIBERATELY spoils their ballot paper and
who is just too ****ed/drugged/careless to do record their vote properly.

Completely *different* to not attending, not being signed in, not
taking a ballot paper, not filling it in, not putting it in the box
and it not being later counted.

No different at all in the sense of what effect that has on the political
process.

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

It might be. It might not.

It is always a complete waste of time because
no one ever does anything different because of
the number of spoiled ballot papers that are
seen in a particular election or even ballot box.

Whoosh.

There is no whoosh.

Any spoiled papers are 'counted'

And no count is made of which ones were
DELIBERATELY spoiled and which ones were not.

and if the number is great enough

They never are. And what you choose
to do has no effect whatever on that.

you can be sure they would look
into it to see if there was a pattern.

And when that never happens, they don't.

On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 09:19:22 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:
snip

Ok, now we can only have got that straight (to anyone other than a
complete moron), can you see the difference between someone attending
the polling station and spoiling their paper and those not attending at
all?

Not in the sense of having any effect what so ever the political system.

I never said it *would*. What I said is that it did *count* but at
least I've educated you on that now.

Its not as if the deliberately spoiled ballot paper is
explicitly recorded so anyone looking at the stats

Yes it is.

No it is not with the DELIBERATELY as opposed to accidentally.

Agreed, but *is* recorded (and my point).

can see how many of those there are and how many
were spoiled accidentally by those who don't
understand what the law requires for the vote
to be valid or were just drunk, careless or left
their reading glasses at home by accident etc.

Quite, they all just count as someone attending, taking a ballot
paper, marking it (or not), placing it in the box and when counted,
counted as the number of ballot papers submitted. IT IS COUNTED.

But no count is made of who DELIBERATELY spoils their ballot paper and
who is just too ****ed/drugged/careless to do record their vote properly.

Correct (generally / at the moment).

Completely *different* to not attending, not being signed in, not
taking a ballot paper, not filling it in, not putting it in the box
and it not being later counted.

No different at all in the sense of what effect that has on the political
process.

Nice backpedal. I never stated anything other than it being an
indication of being willing to make the effort to post a ballot paper.

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

It might be. It might not.

It is always a complete waste of time because
no one ever does anything different because of
the number of spoiled ballot papers that are
seen in a particular election or even ballot box.

Whoosh.

There is no whoosh.

Let's see ...

Any spoiled papers are 'counted'

And no count is made of which ones were
DELIBERATELY spoiled and which ones were not.

Never said there was (generally / yet), all I said (and you countered)
was that there WAS a difference between not voting at all ... and
voting and spoiling your paper. You have now learned different so
that's good (ok, it took a while and a few people telling you but you
got there in the end, as is often the case because even you can't keep
arguing black = white for ever). ;-)

and if the number is great enough

They never are.

You (particularly) have no way of predicting that.

And what you choose
to do has no effect whatever on that.

Of course it could. If enough people turn up and spoil their papers
they could even have a re-vote and change the options. There is even a
system in place for exactly that already:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/None_o...e#Blank_ballot

You might find this interesting (or if you weren't *you*,
'embarrassing):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/None_o...United_Kingdom
"UK electoral counting procedures require that all votes be counted
and announced, including 'rejected' votes. 'Rejected votes' are
classified into four categories,

http://www.electoralcommission.org.u...ls-booklet.pdf

protest votes are recorded with others rejected as 'voter's intention
uncertain'. "

(so something else you have learned from me!). ;-)

you can be sure they would look
into it to see if there was a pattern.

And when that never happens, they don't.

Duh.

But when it does they do. See how easy it is to play your stupid game?
;-)

Cheers, T i m

T i m wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Ok, now we can only have got that straight (to anyone other than a
complete moron), can you see the difference between someone attending
the polling station and spoiling their paper and those not attending at
all?

Not in the sense of having any effect what so ever on the political
system.

I never said it *would*.

Then you are clearly wasting your time when you should up and
deliberately spoil your ballot paper instead of just not showing up.

What I said is that it did *count*

And you have now confirmed that it doesn't.

but at least I've educated you on that now.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed egotistical fantasys.

Its not as if the deliberately spoiled ballot paper is
explicitly recorded so anyone looking at the stats

Yes it is.

No it is not with the DELIBERATELY as opposed to accidentally.

Agreed, but *is* recorded (and my point).

You never had a point except the one on your head.

can see how many of those there are and how many
were spoiled accidentally by those who don't
understand what the law requires for the vote
to be valid or were just drunk, careless or left
their reading glasses at home by accident etc.

Quite, they all just count as someone attending, taking a ballot
paper, marking it (or not), placing it in the box and when counted,
counted as the number of ballot papers submitted. IT IS COUNTED.

But no count is made of who DELIBERATELY spoils their ballot paper and
who is just too ****ed/drugged/careless to do record their vote properly.

Correct (generally / at the moment).

So there is no point in you showing up and deliberately spoiling your ballot
paper.

Completely *different* to not attending, not being signed
in, not taking a ballot paper, not filling it in, not putting it
in the box and it not being later counted.

No different at all in the sense of what
effect that has on the political process.

Nice backpedal.

Pathetic excuse for bull**** on your part, as always.

I never stated anything other than it being an indication
of being willing to make the effort to post a ballot paper.

Which is a complete waste of time.

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

It might be. It might not.

It is always a complete waste of time because
no one ever does anything different because of
the number of spoiled ballot papers that are
seen in a particular election or even ballot box.

Whoosh.

There is no whoosh.

Let's see ...

We've seen, you desperately attempting
to bull**** your way out of your predicament
and fooling absolutely no one at all, as always.

Any spoiled papers are 'counted'

And no count is made of which ones were
DELIBERATELY spoiled and which ones were not.

Never said there was

Never said you did.

(generally / yet),

So there is no point in showing up and deliberately spoiling your ballot
paper.

all I said (and you countered) was that there WAS a difference
between not voting at all ... and voting and spoiling your paper.

No one ever said there wasn't, ****wit.

You have now learned different so that's good

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed egotistical fantasys.

reams of your pathetic excuse for bull****/lies flushed where it belongs

and if the number is great enough

They never are.

You (particularly) have no way of predicting that.

Wrong, as always.

And what you choose to do has no effect whatever on that.

Of course it could.

We'll see...

If enough people turn up and spoil their papers

Taint gunna happen.

they could even have a re-vote

Taint gunna happen.

and change the options.

Taint gunna happen.

There is even a system in place for exactly that already:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/None_o...e#Blank_ballot

Not in the referendum you are about to make
such a spectacular fool of yourself in there isnt.

Even a terminal ****wit such as yourself should have noticed
that that is SPAIN and that you wont be voting in SPAIN.

You might find this interesting (or if you weren't *you*, 'embarrassing):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/None_o...United_Kingdom
"UK electoral counting procedures require that all votes be counted
and announced, including 'rejected' votes. 'Rejected votes' are
classified into four categories,

http://www.electoralcommission.org.u...ls-booklet.pdf

protest votes are recorded with others rejected as 'voter's intention
uncertain'. "

So no one will ever know how many were DELIBERATELY spoiled.

(so something else you have learned from me!). ;-)

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed egotistical fantasys.

you can be sure they would look
into it to see if there was a pattern.

And when that never happens, they don't.

Duh.

But when it does

It doesn't.

On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 19:52:14 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

T i m wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Ok, now we can only have got that straight (to anyone other than a
complete moron), can you see the difference between someone attending
the polling station and spoiling their paper and those not attending at
all?

Not in the sense of having any effect what so ever on the political
system.

I never said it *would*.

Then you are clearly wasting your time when you should up and
deliberately spoil your ballot paper instead of just not showing up.

Whilst I am honoured that you are so interested how I spend my time, I
think it's only me who can decide if that time is 'wasted' or not (and
certainly not you!).

What I said is that it did *count*

And you have now confirmed that it doesn't.

And now I have *proved* that it does. It 'counts' in so much that it
is 'counted' / noted and that was all I ever expected or stated.

but at least I've educated you on that now.

snip the rest unread

Back in the box for you ...

Cheers, T i m

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 19:52:14 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

T i m wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Ok, now we can only have got that straight (to anyone other than a
complete moron), can you see the difference between someone attending
the polling station and spoiling their paper and those not attending
at
all?

Not in the sense of having any effect what so ever on the political
system.

I never said it *would*.

Then you are clearly wasting your time when you show up and
deliberately spoil your ballot paper instead of just not showing up.

Whilst I am honoured that you are so interested how I spend my time,

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed egotistical fantasys.

I think

Obvious lie.

it's only me who can decide if that time is 'wasted' or not

Wrong, as always.

What I said is that it did *count*

And you have now confirmed that it doesn't.

And now I have *proved* that it does.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed egotistical fantasys.

It 'counts' in so much that it is 'counted' / noted

Like hell it is with DELIBERATELY spoiled ballot papers.

Back in the box for you ...

Even sillier than you usually manage.

On 10/06/2016 17:26, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 11:24:47 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

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.

Again, whilst that could very well be the case, someone like RB who
came from 'a small business' *might* be able to both remember those
days and be able to distance himself from his personal / current
position and offer a real / unbiased overview?

They might be able to offer a view - not sure one can ever be unbiased
when dealing with complex and unknown factors - but since its all still
based on conjecture you are no nearer to getting the "right" answer.

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.

But at the same time there will be say coarse fishermen who maybe
happy the EU have been looking out for them re the control of
poisonous chemicals as used by plumbers as the local waterways are now
filled with fish again?

I was not aware plumbers were particularly renowned for pollution of
water courses! ;-)

However I accept the point that not all legislation is necessarily bad
or unwelcome (although much of it is either unnecessary or counter
productive IME).

Take the other thread on Glyphosate herbicides, for a range of reasons
(none with much to do with science or real risk) it may well be banned.
In many cases forcing use of alternative options that are often more
environmentally costly in real terms.

He may also feel less threatened by the
possibility of priced out of work by people operating without his costs
or overheads.

Unfortunately that's the way it works these days (but still a valid
fear for him etc).

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.

Possibly, but how do you (or I) judge those things that are
unnecessarily restrictive versus those things that are 'for our own
good'?

You can't always, however in many cases its fairly obvious when you are
jumping through administrative hoops to provide "data" to QUANGOs that
don't know what to do with it, and don't really want it.

How may people didn't wear a seatbelt all the time until they were
forced to?

Plenty... however even that, when analysed with some hindsight was not
the clear "win" that people thought it was. Factor out the effects of
the big anti drink drive campaign at the time, and then look at the
increase in injuries to pedestrians and other non car road users that
resulted in car drivers changing their driving style in response to
feeling "safer" (aka "risk homostasis"), and you end up with not much
actual real change in the total number of deaths and serious injuries on
the road.

I'm not saying all the restrictions are for the best for
everyone ... I liked real Creosote and Nitromoors for example but
maybe 'Jo public' could hurt themselves or the environment (which we
all have to then suffer).

Perhaps its that attitude to risk that has resulted in many of the
younger generation being almost unable to function as adults ;-)


If you don't speed then you won't be caught speeding so the cameras
won't be an issue to you. ;-)

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!

Quite, and once again demonstrating that the granularity of an In/Out
vote is too low.

In theory that could already be covered with yet another unknown and
that is any Exit deal we negotiate. Being as there is a good chance
these are already known and being discussed, they could form a part of
the 'Other' sub options on the ballot paper?

Except we don't have any other options, so need to go with what is
actually on offer, however imperfect.




--
Cheers,

John.

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

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

"T i m" wrote in message
. ..

It 'counts' in so much that it is 'counted' / noted

Like hell it is with DELIBERATELY spoiled ballot papers.

The number of spoiled papers is reported at the end of the Count, when
the Returning Officer gives out the figures and declares who has been
elected.

But no count or report is made that distinguishes the DELIBERATELY
spoiled ballot papers from the ones that have been spoiled by accident
or ignorance of what has to be done for it to be a valid vote.

On 10/06/2016 17:11, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 13:10:07 +0100, RJH wrote:

snip

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?

Either he really can't (in which case there is little point trying to
educate him further) or he can and is just being his argumentative
self.


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

It might be. It might not.

It's nothing about time of course, it's about democracy and retaining
the *right* to vote because you *can* be bothered.

Just in the same way you can have your departmental budget reduced if
you don't use it up by the end of the financial year. ;-) [1]

Cheers, T i m

[1] The only time it won't be used up is if the department manager is
paid a bonus on what funds remain. ;-(


One thing I learned in the 'real world of organisations' - overspend
whatever budget you have. Obviously have a decent reason for doing it.

The number of times I've seen managers gloat about underspends, and then
appear perplexed when their budgets are cut.

Good job I'm not a manager I suppose :-)

--
Cheers, Rob

On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 16:15:58 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

snip

Again, whilst that could very well be the case, someone like RB who
came from 'a small business' *might* be able to both remember those
days and be able to distance himself from his personal / current
position and offer a real / unbiased overview?

They might be able to offer a view - not sure one can ever be unbiased
when dealing with complex and unknown factors - but since its all still
based on conjecture you are no nearer to getting the "right" answer.

I'd like to think otherwise. Have you never been in a position where
you would answer completely honestly, even when you might have a
personal bias that might normally influence your answer?

Like, I'm no *fan* of Apple products or OSX for all sorts of
real-world and practical (to me) reasons but there are times when I'll
recommend a Mac because I believe it would be the best thing for
*them*?

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.

But at the same time there will be say coarse fishermen who maybe
happy the EU have been looking out for them re the control of
poisonous chemicals as used by plumbers as the local waterways are now
filled with fish again?

I was not aware plumbers were particularly renowned for pollution of
water courses! ;-)

Well, they have been know to use some pretty caustic chemicals when
cleaning out drains and central heating systems and they often end up
down the drain surface water drain and potentially in our rivers and
canals?

However I accept the point that not all legislation is necessarily bad
or unwelcome (although much of it is either unnecessary or counter
productive IME).

I'm sure there are going to be things that aren't completely
cut_and_dried but I think most of it is well intended.

Take the other thread on Glyphosate herbicides, for a range of reasons
(none with much to do with science or real risk) it may well be banned.

Do you have unequivocal evidence there is no risk? You know how many
things have been brought up as being a risk, cleared only to re-appear
when we better understand the 'bigger picture'?

In many cases forcing use of alternative options that are often more
environmentally costly in real terms.

Sure, that's bound to happen now and again but in general ... I
believe most people, when given the bigger picture will agree that
it's in the best interests of all of us.

He may also feel less threatened by the
possibility of priced out of work by people operating without his costs
or overheads.

Unfortunately that's the way it works these days (but still a valid
fear for him etc).

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.

Possibly, but how do you (or I) judge those things that are
unnecessarily restrictive versus those things that are 'for our own
good'?

You can't always, however in many cases its fairly obvious when you are
jumping through administrative hoops to provide "data" to QUANGOs that
don't know what to do with it, and don't really want it.

Sure, no system is perfect, even one that is supposed to be there to
look after *us* (like the Government, the Police and the NHS).

How may people didn't wear a seatbelt all the time until they were
forced to?

Plenty... however even that, when analysed with some hindsight was not
the clear "win" that people thought it was. Factor out the effects of
the big anti drink drive campaign at the time, and then look at the
increase in injuries to pedestrians and other non car road users that
resulted in car drivers changing their driving style in response to
feeling "safer" (aka "risk homostasis"), and you end up with not much
actual real change in the total number of deaths and serious injuries on
the road.

Again, 'sure'. Fix one thing and there is a chance some of what was
resolved will re-appear somewhere else. It has always been said that
if there was a steel spike sticking out of the steering wheel, most
people would drive more carefully. However, 'in the main', the concept
is sound and we just then have to work harder at resolving the
knock-on things.

I'm not saying all the restrictions are for the best for
everyone ... I liked real Creosote and Nitromoors for example but
maybe 'Jo public' could hurt themselves or the environment (which we
all have to then suffer).

Perhaps its that attitude to risk that has resulted in many of the
younger generation being almost unable to function as adults ;-)

Yup, I agree with that but only to / at a certain level. I got our
daughter soldering and making her dolls house with me when she was 4
or 5. And much to her Mums concern, yes it was a real soldering iron
and vibro saw but with her wearing safety glasses when soldering after
being given a reasonably comprehensive lesson, I thought the remaining
risk acceptable, versus the benefit. Same was riding a motorcycle,
when you come off an off-road bike when you are 6 you tend to bounce
better than when you are 60 ... you also learn (very quickly) that you
don't really want to do that again. ;-)


If you don't speed then you won't be caught speeding so the cameras
won't be an issue to you. ;-)

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!

Quite, and once again demonstrating that the granularity of an In/Out
vote is too low.

In theory that could already be covered with yet another unknown and
that is any Exit deal we negotiate. Being as there is a good chance
these are already known and being discussed, they could form a part of
the 'Other' sub options on the ballot paper?

Except we don't have any other options, so need to go with what is
actually on offer, however imperfect.

Quite ... and even after we have take either option and the
re-negotiations complete, do we get a second vote?

It's like phoning the cancellations dept for your cable supplier, you
can't actually decide if you still want to cancel till you hear what
they might offer to get you to stay.

Cheers, T i m

On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 20:21:07 +0100, RJH wrote:

snip

[1] The only time it won't be used up is if the department manager is
paid a bonus on what funds remain. ;-(


One thing I learned in the 'real world of organisations' - overspend
whatever budget you have. Obviously have a decent reason for doing it.

;-)

The number of times I've seen managers gloat about underspends, and then
appear perplexed when their budgets are cut.

You do wonder how they got there eh.

Good job I'm not a manager I suppose :-)

At one of the companies I worked for there were around 35 employees
and I was about the only person who wasn't a manager, even though some
were in any higher position than I and 'managed' no one (unlike me).
;-)

Cheers, T i m

On 11/06/2016 21:03, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 16:15:58 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

snip

Again, whilst that could very well be the case, someone like RB who
came from 'a small business' *might* be able to both remember those
days and be able to distance himself from his personal / current
position and offer a real / unbiased overview?

They might be able to offer a view - not sure one can ever be unbiased
when dealing with complex and unknown factors - but since its all still
based on conjecture you are no nearer to getting the "right" answer.

I'd like to think otherwise. Have you never been in a position where
you would answer completely honestly, even when you might have a
personal bias that might normally influence your answer?

While its obviously possible to have a personal "what's best for me"
viewpoint that is different from "what I believe to be the greater
good", I expect that the difficulty is that in many cases your
completely "honest" answer *is* the one including personal bias; a bias
you are probably not even aware of.

Like, I'm no *fan* of Apple products or OSX for all sorts of
real-world and practical (to me) reasons but there are times when I'll
recommend a Mac because I believe it would be the best thing for
*them*?


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.

But at the same time there will be say coarse fishermen who maybe
happy the EU have been looking out for them re the control of
poisonous chemicals as used by plumbers as the local waterways are now
filled with fish again?

I was not aware plumbers were particularly renowned for pollution of
water courses! ;-)

Well, they have been know to use some pretty caustic chemicals when
cleaning out drains and central heating systems and they often end up
down the drain surface water drain and potentially in our rivers and
canals?

Can't say it figures high on my radar!

However I accept the point that not all legislation is necessarily bad
or unwelcome (although much of it is either unnecessary or counter
productive IME).

I'm sure there are going to be things that aren't completely
cut_and_dried but I think most of it is well intended.

Like the paving on the road to hell!

Take the other thread on Glyphosate herbicides, for a range of reasons
(none with much to do with science or real risk) it may well be banned.

Do you have unequivocal evidence there is no risk? You know how many
things have been brought up as being a risk, cleared only to re-appear
when we better understand the 'bigger picture'?

Its not so much proving there is no risk (almost impossible), but it is
a well used and tested product. Note something that can be said for many
alternatives. Some of those currently used by the "organic" brigade are
already known to be more problematical.

In many cases forcing use of alternative options that are often more
environmentally costly in real terms.

Sure, that's bound to happen now and again but in general ... I
believe most people, when given the bigger picture will agree that
it's in the best interests of all of us.

Even when the "bigger picture" is that pesticide manufacturers are keen
to get the long out of patent "generic" out of production leaving only
their much higher revenue generating products as the only alternative?

Possibly, but how do you (or I) judge those things that are
unnecessarily restrictive versus those things that are 'for our own
good'?

You can't always, however in many cases its fairly obvious when you are
jumping through administrative hoops to provide "data" to QUANGOs that
don't know what to do with it, and don't really want it.

Sure, no system is perfect, even one that is supposed to be there to
look after *us* (like the Government, the Police and the NHS).

How may people didn't wear a seatbelt all the time until they were
forced to?

Plenty... however even that, when analysed with some hindsight was not
the clear "win" that people thought it was. Factor out the effects of
the big anti drink drive campaign at the time, and then look at the
increase in injuries to pedestrians and other non car road users that
resulted in car drivers changing their driving style in response to
feeling "safer" (aka "risk homostasis"), and you end up with not much
actual real change in the total number of deaths and serious injuries on
the road.

Again, 'sure'. Fix one thing and there is a chance some of what was
resolved will re-appear somewhere else. It has always been said that
if there was a steel spike sticking out of the steering wheel, most
people would drive more carefully. However, 'in the main', the concept
is sound and we just then have to work harder at resolving the
knock-on things.

True. Not sure what that has to do with the EU though

I'm not saying all the restrictions are for the best for
everyone ... I liked real Creosote and Nitromoors for example but
maybe 'Jo public' could hurt themselves or the environment (which we
all have to then suffer).

Perhaps its that attitude to risk that has resulted in many of the
younger generation being almost unable to function as adults ;-)

Yup, I agree with that but only to / at a certain level. I got our
daughter soldering and making her dolls house with me when she was 4
or 5. And much to her Mums concern, yes it was a real soldering iron
and vibro saw but with her wearing safety glasses when soldering after
being given a reasonably comprehensive lesson, I thought the remaining
risk acceptable, versus the benefit. Same was riding a motorcycle,
when you come off an off-road bike when you are 6 you tend to bounce
better than when you are 60 ... you also learn (very quickly) that you
don't really want to do that again. ;-)

[snip]

In theory that could already be covered with yet another unknown and
that is any Exit deal we negotiate. Being as there is a good chance
these are already known and being discussed, they could form a part of
the 'Other' sub options on the ballot paper?

Except we don't have any other options, so need to go with what is
actually on offer, however imperfect.

Quite ... and even after we have take either option and the
re-negotiations complete, do we get a second vote?

Who knows... I would not be surprised if they interpret "out" as "lets
do some more show boating and ask the question again until we get the
"right" answer.

It's like phoning the cancellations dept for your cable supplier, you
can't actually decide if you still want to cancel till you hear what
they might offer to get you to stay.



--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 08/06/2016 14:11, Chris Hogg wrote:
There is one truth, and only one truth, regarding the referendum, and
that is that we'll all be heartily sick of the whole bloody thing come
referendum day!

I've not been following these threads, but this message was first when I
went to collapse the thread and skip over it.

What do you mean, come referendum day? I'm sick of it already!

Just so happens I'll be out of Europe on Der Tag and might not even hear
the result.

Andy