Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
200 quid for chips?
"GB" wrote in message ... On 10/07/2016 22:43, Rod Speed wrote: "GB" wrote in message ... On 10/07/2016 16:45, wrote: Beef dripping has less total calories than palm fat: http://www.federationoffishfriers.co...l-info-605.htm If I want fish and chips, I generally don't want a bit of nasty end of beef mixed in, thanks. YMMV. I do find *all* chips from fish and chip shops simply awful. I want crispy and brown. They do pale and soggy. I have no idea why? Because they dont run the fat hot enough so it lasts longer. The amazing thing is that the customers buy them. Presumably because most of them have never tasted any done properly. |
#42
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
200 quid for chips?
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 17:46:14 UTC+1, bm wrote:
"Weatherlawyer" wrote in message ... My deep at fryer is taking too long to provide my faraggio of potatage. Before I brexitit can anyone tell me a good reason besides saving on fuel why I would do better spending hundreds rather than tens on the Nexit? http://www.tefal.co.uk/Cooking-appli...g%2Bappliances Local chippy. If they don't use dead cow or (smellier) pig then they may be using an oil based on a vegetable I am allergic to. I think I am all-right with corn oil but leguminatti stuff will have me clenching my fingers tightly and spending the night trying to unwind them. Fug that! |
#43
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
200 quid for chips?
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 15:21:19 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jul 2016 14:07:53 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote: In article , T i m wrote: p.s. On the Sunday Politics show this morning I caught a bit where they had asked someone why they voted leave and the answer was the classic 'to stop immigration. When asked if he had considered any other aspects like a potential negative financial impact on the country and he answered 'I don't care, it's only me and my dog ...'. If you watched any vox pops from the areas which were once prosperous, it was the common reason. And when they explained there were more immigrants coming into this country (legally) than those coming in from the EU (also legally) they seemed stunned (it was definitely 'news to them')? Stunned because it was such an utterly obvious and pointless point, it's hard to know what to say to it. When it was explained that these 'immigrants' were often a) doing the jobs that many English people wouldn't and b) paying their taxes and buying our products and c) many industries wouldn't be able to cope without them ... they were even further stunned. same as the above However, being stunned didn't seem to stop the auto response of 'well, yeah, but we have too many immigrants ...' *Every* honest discussion I have seen or heard since has had this undertone of 'no one fully contemplated the consequences of leaving the EU', because no one could of course. discussions by people that haven't engaged brain maybe. Some however had a reasonably good idea and from a general man-in-the-street and most experts POV, it now looks like leaving seems to be more negative (especially in the short term (~12 years)) to most people lives than staying. for 'looks like' read 'that's the spin I'm hearing on it' The leavers that aren't seriously (now) considering the consequences of their actions are generally those who voted Leave for some bogus and most likely never-to-be-seen-ITRW 'outcome'. more propaganda Like, home many *more* immigrants might we see over the next two years as opposed to those who might have been coming in over the next 10 had we stayed? How will the leavers cope with not 180,000 p.a. but 750,000? They will come even knowing there won't be a job or housing because it's their 'last chance'? more propaganda And I don't think you could accuse the BBC of being pro leave so showing a carefully edited viewpoint. Nope, they generally show an equal number of both sides. From when I used to listen to the BBC, it's not the number they play with, but how well thought thought each side's points are. And the real key points are often just not mentioned at all. It might just be him when the cost of dog food goes up. ;-( Or even his own food. If it's delivered by a vehicle it will already be costing more (with fuel bought against the pound - dollar value). And that's the point isn't it ... no most of the great unwashed have so I think you'll find the masses do wash these days. Bathrooms & DHW are affordable now. little idea about the 'bigger picture' of all this it frightens me that they are allowed to vote. a separate topic for another thread I didn't vote (well I voted NOTA [1]) because *I know* I don't know enough about it. Cheers, T i m [1] And that's another thing that has often been brought up in these post Brexit discussions. Had the people been able to vote for a few more options, we might have got closer to what the people *actually* wanted than the binary *choice* they were given (or were tricked into making). So when the vote goes your way, people voted rightly and when it doesnt they were 'tricked.' Oh, and now the outcome doesn't suit you you want some other options instead. NT |
#44
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
200 quid for chips?
On Mon, 11 Jul 2016 01:23:58 -0700, tabbypurr wrote:
And I don't think you could accuse the BBC of being pro leave so showing a carefully edited viewpoint. Nope, they generally show an equal number of both sides. From when I used to listen to the BBC, it's not the number they play with, but how well thought thought each side's points are. And the real key points are often just not mentioned at all. That's up to each campaign/party/side as to who gets put forward for interview, and how competent they are, of course. |
#45
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
200 quid for chips?
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 21:34:49 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"Syd Rumpo" wrote in message ... On 10/07/2016 12:54, R D S wrote: On Sun, 10 Jul 2016 10:12:02 +0100, GB wrote: On 10/07/2016 09:47, wrote: On Sunday, 10 July 2016 09:38:00 UTC+1, Weatherlawyer wrote: My deep at fryer is taking too long to provide my faraggio of potatage. Before I brexitit can anyone tell me a good reason besides saving on fuel why I would do better spending hundreds rather than tens on the Nexit? http://www.tefal.co.uk/Cooking-appli...g%2Bappliances All it's got to do is get hot & lift the chips out. What do you think? Oven chips are far healthier anyway. Aren't the ultra low fat air fryers healthier still? I think Lidl are doing one for 50 quid. Tempted to give it a try. The Tefal one slowly 'tumbles' the chips with a rotating scoop to ensure even coating and cooking, it works very well but is expensive. I don't think the cheaper ones do this. Apart from using much less oil, it's better than deep frying because you can add things, for example, a sprig of rosemary, black pepper or a good pinch of smoked paprika, even some Parmesan towards the end. All this gets tumbled around with the chips. I like to crinkle cut the chips, or if the spuds are small, make them more like Tapas. Because the tablespoon of oil is only used once, you can use just about any type. For me, it's usually either grapeseed oil for crispness Interesting. I do something similar, dip whole peeled potatoes in olive oil currently and then roast them in a convection oven. http://www.aliexpress.com/item/Low-p...036436392.html or a 50/50 mix of olive and chilli oil for flavour. You know fact the the Italians are not cheating you? How about the Greeks? Going to be different now, is it? I'll try some grapeseed oil if I can find some, the olive oil doesnt end up as crisp as I want with some of the potato varieties. Try sauté them for a couple of minutes and then let them drain. Not too wet though unless you like the fried crumbs. Melody is flavour of the month at my house: https://absolutedeli.wordpress.com/i...ents/potatoes/ |
#46
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
200 quid for chips?
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 16:45:35 UTC+1, wrote:
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 13:29:25 UTC+1, T i m wrote: If you want healthy, don't eat chips at all. Along similar lines, when buying a sandwich out we to try to go for stuff on 'multigrain' or 'wholemeal' ... Less fat in a portion of fish and chips than in a sandwich: The total fat content of an average portion of fish and chips is estimated to be 48.2g. This compares favourably with a cheese and ham sandwich with mayonnaise which has 51.98g fat and a donner kebab in pitta bread with salad and chips, which has a total fat content of 57.74g. http://www.greatbritishfishandchips.co.uk/page8.htm An average portion of fish, chips and peas contains only 7.3% fat of which 2.8% is saturated fat. This compares with 10.8% fat in a pork pie and 16.8 grams you will find in a tuna mayonnaise sandwich. http://www.federationoffishfriers.co...igures-603.htm So 2 organisations that promote fish & chips claim they contain less fat than an exceptionally high fat sandwich containing unknown and chosen by them quantities of exceptionally high fat ingredients. More useless information would be hard to find. Beef dripping has less total calories than palm fat: http://www.federationoffishfriers.co...l-info-605.htm 220/100g versus 216/100g. Maybe you also noticed they were comparing unequal samples, making such figures completely worthless. NT |
#47
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
200 quid for chips?
On Monday, 11 July 2016 09:27:17 UTC+1, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2016 01:23:58 -0700, tabbypurr wrote: And I don't think you could accuse the BBC of being pro leave so showing a carefully edited viewpoint. Nope, they generally show an equal number of both sides. From when I used to listen to the BBC, it's not the number they play with, but how well thought thought each side's points are. And the real key points are often just not mentioned at all. That's up to each campaign/party/side as to who gets put forward for interview, and how competent they are, of course. No I'm talking about the various interviews and discussions of audiences, people in the street, letters etc. NT |
#48
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
200 quid for chips?
In article ,
wrote: And I don't think you could accuse the BBC of being pro leave so showing a carefully edited viewpoint. Nope, they generally show an equal number of both sides. From when I used to listen to the BBC, it's not the number they play with, but how well thought thought each side's points are. And the real key points are often just not mentioned at all. They are vox pops. Rather difficult to select them from only those who have a good understanding of the subject. That's what 'experts' are for. Except that the common man was told to ignore those, as they're not always right. By the leave campaign, of course. Who were rather lacking in experts supporting them. As is only too obvious now. -- *Honk if you love peace and quiet* Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#49
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
200 quid for chips?
|
#50
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
200 quid for chips?
In article om,
dennis@home wrote: On 11/07/2016 09:23, wrote: So when the vote goes your way, people voted rightly and when it doesnt they were 'tricked.' Oh, and now the outcome doesn't suit you you want some other options instead. The problem with the referendum is that neither side will get what they voted for if they voted against immigration or better funding of the NHS or any of the other promises made by people that couldn't deliver them. So yes, a lot were tricked into voting one way. I'd say there's little doubt that the vote was won by those whose aim was to end immigration. And give the government a good kicking. They almost certainly won't get what they think they were voting for immigration wise, and have likely hurt their own foot rather more than the government. Depending on which way you voted you will probably think the others were tricked but time will show which ones were tricked the most and I would put bets on it being the leave voters as most of them will not get what they wanted. Stay will keep most of what we have but at the cost of any influence in the way the EU is going. So all in all only the Germans and French win. I think in this case everyone loses. -- *If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#51
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
200 quid for chips?
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
wrote And I don't think you could accuse the BBC of being pro leave so showing a carefully edited viewpoint. Nope, they generally show an equal number of both sides. From when I used to listen to the BBC, it's not the number they play with, but how well thought thought each side's points are. And the real key points are often just not mentioned at all. They are vox pops. Rather difficult to select them from only those who have a good understanding of the subject. That's what 'experts' are for. Except that the common man was told to ignore those, as they're not always right. By the leave campaign, of course. Who were rather lacking in experts supporting them. As is only too obvious now. And you are about to see that those so called experts don’t have any more clue about the result of brexit than they did about the eurozone or predicting the completely implosion of much of the world financial system, again, or whether it made any sense at all to deregulate the banks, either. With a record like that, only a fool like you takes any notice of what they claim the result of brexit will be. |
#52
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
200 quid for chips?
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote: who were rather lacking in experts supporting them. As is only too obvious now. And you are about to see that those so called experts Ah. Your famous crystal ball. About as much use as you. -- *Life is hard; then you nap Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#53
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
200 quid for chips?
dennis@home wrote
wrote So when the vote goes your way, people voted rightly and when it doesnt they were 'tricked.' Oh, and now the outcome doesn't suit you you want some other options instead. The problem with the referendum is that neither side will get what they voted for if they voted against immigration or better funding of the NHS or any of the other promises made by people that couldn't deliver them. So yes, a lot were tricked into voting one way. Depending on which way you voted you will probably think the others were tricked but time will show which ones were tricked the most and I would put bets on it being the leave voters as most of them will not get what they wanted. Bet they do on Britain being able to decide policy for itself and so be able to apply the same rules to immigration from the EU as applys to the rest of the world if it wants to. Stay will keep most of what we have but at the cost of any influence in the way the EU is going. Britain had **** all of that. So all in all only the Germans and French win. They'll be losing now that Britain no longer has to pump billions into the EU every year and they will either have to make up that loss of income, or get to wear the fact that the EU doesnt have as much money to **** against the wall on whatever it likes. In spades if the eurozone implodes completely they dont have the money to bail it out. Even with NATO, there is **** all from the EU with Britain no longer in the EU. May not matter much now that war in western europe is gone now and the military is just another ****ing great hole to pour billions down. |
#54
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
200 quid for chips?
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
dennis@home wrote wrote So when the vote goes your way, people voted rightly and when it doesnt they were 'tricked.' Oh, and now the outcome doesn't suit you you want some other options instead. The problem with the referendum is that neither side will get what they voted for if they voted against immigration or better funding of the NHS or any of the other promises made by people that couldn't deliver them. So yes, a lot were tricked into voting one way. I'd say there's little doubt that the vote was won by those whose aim was to end immigration. More fool you. That is nothing even remotely like a majority of those who bothered to vote. And give the government a good kicking. Ditto. They almost certainly won't get what they think they were voting for immigration wise, For the tiny minority who want all immigration stopped, sure. But there will be a significant reduction in what most don’t like to see once Britain is able to have the same rules for EU migration as it does for the rest of the world and can decide that it wont allow Romanian car cleaners to show up in Britain with their brats and move into council houses or what used to be hotels etc at govt expense. and have likely hurt their own foot rather more than the government. Bet that doesn’t happen. Even if the pound does stay as low as it is currently, that will have **** all effect on the cost of the **** they buy in pubs, fast food outlets, currys, ready meals etc. Unlikely to have much effect on the cost of pet food either. Depending on which way you voted you will probably think the others were tricked but time will show which ones were tricked the most and I would put bets on it being the leave voters as most of them will not get what they wanted. Stay will keep most of what we have but at the cost of any influence in the way the EU is going. So all in all only the Germans and French win. I think in this case everyone loses. More fool you. Britain doesn’t lose when it gets to decide policy for itself. Whether you lot have enough of a clue to actually use that capacity effectively tho is up to you lot. |
#55
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
200 quid for chips?
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , Rod Speed wrote: who were rather lacking in experts supporting them. As is only too obvious now. And you are about to see that those so called experts Ah. Your famous crystal ball. You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag. |
#56
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
200 quid for chips?
On Monday, 11 July 2016 16:32:39 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 11/07/2016 09:23, tabbypurr wrote: So when the vote goes your way, people voted rightly and when it doesnt they were 'tricked.' Oh, and now the outcome doesn't suit you you want some other options instead. The problem with the referendum is that neither side will get what they voted for if they voted against immigration or better funding of the NHS or any of the other promises made by people that couldn't deliver them. So yes, a lot were tricked into voting one way. Depending on which way you voted you will probably think the others were tricked but time will show which ones were tricked the most and I would put bets on it being the leave voters as most of them will not get what they wanted. Stay will keep most of what we have but at the cost of any influence in the way the EU is going. So all in all only the Germans and French win. With respect there was bs from both sides, as there is at every vote. NT |
#57
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
200 quid for chips?
On Monday, 11 July 2016 17:10:18 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article om, dennis@home wrote: On 11/07/2016 09:23, tabbypurr wrote: So when the vote goes your way, people voted rightly and when it doesnt they were 'tricked.' Oh, and now the outcome doesn't suit you you want some other options instead. The problem with the referendum is that neither side will get what they voted for if they voted against immigration or better funding of the NHS or any of the other promises made by people that couldn't deliver them. So yes, a lot were tricked into voting one way. I'd say there's little doubt that the vote was won by those whose aim was to end immigration. And give the government a good kicking. They almost certainly wasn't why I voted as I did. snip more remainisms. NT |
#58
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
200 quid for chips?
On Monday, 11 July 2016 09:34:53 UTC+1, wrote:
So 2 organisations that promote fish & chips claim they contain less fat than an exceptionally high fat sandwich containing unknown and chosen by them quantities of exceptionally high fat ingredients. More useless information would be hard to find. Not that hard. The case for windmills, or invading Iraq, would be two easy examples. Owain |
#59
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
200 quid for chips?
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote: I'd say there's little doubt that the vote was won by those whose aim was to end immigration. More fool you. That is nothing even remotely like a majority of those who bothered to vote. Doesn't need to be the majority, cretin. Only enough to swing the vote. -- *Arkansas State Motto: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Laugh. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#60
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
200 quid for chips?
In article ,
wrote: On Monday, 11 July 2016 17:10:18 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article om, dennis@home wrote: On 11/07/2016 09:23, tabbypurr wrote: So when the vote goes your way, people voted rightly and when it doesnt they were 'tricked.' Oh, and now the outcome doesn't suit you you want some other options instead. The problem with the referendum is that neither side will get what they voted for if they voted against immigration or better funding of the NHS or any of the other promises made by people that couldn't deliver them. So yes, a lot were tricked into voting one way. I'd say there's little doubt that the vote was won by those whose aim was to end immigration. And give the government a good kicking. They almost certainly wasn't why I voted as I did. Didn't say you did. Given the small percentage majority, it didn't need that many to whom immigration was the primary issue to swing the vote. I take it you never watched TV? In those areas where there was a large majority to leave, the most common topic by far was immigration. NT -- *Would a fly without wings be called a walk? Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#61
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
200 quid for chips?
On Tuesday, 12 July 2016 11:14:25 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , tabbypurr wrote: On Monday, 11 July 2016 17:10:18 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: I'd say there's little doubt that the vote was won by those whose aim was to end immigration. And give the government a good kicking. They almost certainly wasn't why I voted as I did. Didn't say you did. Given the small percentage majority, it didn't need that many to whom immigration was the primary issue to swing the vote. I take it you never watched TV? In those areas where there was a large majority to leave, the most common topic by far was immigration. People voted brexit for a variety of reasons. Various were discussed in forums, newsgroups etc. And you could just as well say any of those issues swung the vote - they all did. I'm not so sure what media concentrating on something really means. NT |
#62
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
200 quid for chips?
|
#63
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
200 quid for chips?
In article ,
wrote: I take it you never watched TV? In those areas where there was a large majority to leave, the most common topic by far was immigration. People voted brexit for a variety of reasons. Various were discussed in forums, newsgroups etc. And mostly shown to be lies or gross exaggeration. Or just pure prejudice. And you could just as well say any of those issues swung the vote - they all did. I'm not so sure what media concentrating on something really means. Sort of talking to everyone yourself, it's the closest you'll get. Pretty well all the vox pops in the old industrial areas of the UK which now have high unemployment blamed the EU and immigration as the main reasons for their plight. -- *Indian Driver - Smoke signals only* Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#64
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
200 quid for chips?
On Tuesday, 12 July 2016 14:09:34 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , tabbypurr wrote: I take it you never watched TV? In those areas where there was a large majority to leave, the most common topic by far was immigration. People voted brexit for a variety of reasons. Various were discussed in forums, newsgroups etc. And mostly shown to be lies or gross exaggeration. Or just pure prejudice. hardly And you could just as well say any of those issues swung the vote - they all did. I'm not so sure what media concentrating on something really means. Sort of talking to everyone yourself, it's the closest you'll get. Pretty no, it's not at all. well all the vox pops in the old industrial areas of the UK which now have high unemployment blamed the EU and immigration as the main reasons for their plight. Ie what the media showed you. So what. NT |
#65
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
200 quid for chips?
On Tuesday, 12 July 2016 11:14:25 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , wrote: On Monday, 11 July 2016 17:10:18 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article om, dennis@home wrote: On 11/07/2016 09:23, tabbypurr wrote: So when the vote goes your way, people voted rightly and when it doesnt they were 'tricked.' Oh, and now the outcome doesn't suit you you want some other options instead. The problem with the referendum is that neither side will get what they voted for if they voted against immigration or better funding of the NHS or any of the other promises made by people that couldn't deliver them. So yes, a lot were tricked into voting one way. I'd say there's little doubt that the vote was won by those whose aim was to end immigration. And give the government a good kicking. They almost certainly wasn't why I voted as I did. Didn't say you did. Given the small percentage majority, it didn't need that many to whom immigration was the primary issue to swing the vote. I take it you never watched TV? In those areas where there was a large majority to leave, the most common topic by far was immigration. Strange wasn't it I wonder why the don't want immigration or want to reduce it. |
#66
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
200 quid for chips?
On Monday, 11 July 2016 17:11:38 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
With a record like that, only a fool like you takes any notice of what they claim the result of brexit will be. With the record we call history only a fool would vote for a politician. |
#67
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
200 quid for chips?
On Monday, 11 July 2016 18:56:48 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag. I forgot to add that I like my chips a little soggy I don't wish to waste time eating them when I could give them a suck. So maybe the 200 quid version is suspect? |
#68
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
200 quid for chips?
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote Dave Plowman (News) wrote I'd say there's little doubt that the vote was won by those whose aim was to end immigration. More fool you. That is nothing even remotely like a majority of those who bothered to vote. Doesn't need to be the majority, cretin. Only enough to swing the vote. Have fun substantiating the claim that it was those that 'swung the vote' |
#69
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
200 quid for chips?
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
wrote Dave Plowman (News) wrote dennis@home wrote tabbypurr wrote So when the vote goes your way, people voted rightly and when it doesnt they were 'tricked.' Oh, and now the outcome doesn't suit you you want some other options instead. The problem with the referendum is that neither side will get what they voted for if they voted against immigration or better funding of the NHS or any of the other promises made by people that couldn't deliver them. So yes, a lot were tricked into voting one way. I'd say there's little doubt that the vote was won by those whose aim was to end immigration. And give the government a good kicking. certainly wasn't why I voted as I did. Didn't say you did. Given the small percentage majority, it didn't need that many to whom immigration was the primary issue to swing the vote. I take it you never watched TV? In those areas where there was a large majority to leave, the most common topic by far was immigration. Corse that couldn’t possibly have been the media being selective about what they choose to show of the vox pops, or because those with a bee in their bonnet about immigration being a lot more likely to choose to run their bigotry to the media, just like harry does in here, eh ? |
#70
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
200 quid for chips?
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
wrote I take it you never watched TV? In those areas where there was a large majority to leave, the most common topic by far was immigration. People voted brexit for a variety of reasons. Various were discussed in forums, newsgroups etc. And mostly shown to be lies or gross exaggeration. Just as true of your lot with the lies and gross exaggeration of any effect on the economy or the 'poor' etc. Or just pure prejudice. Ditto. And you could just as well say any of those issues swung the vote - they all did. I'm not so sure what media concentrating on something really means. Sort of talking to everyone yourself, it's the closest you'll get. Pretty well all the vox pops in the old industrial areas of the UK which now have high unemployment blamed the EU and immigration as the main reasons for their plight. Corse there is no possibility what so ever of the media being selective about which ones they broadcast or the more rabid bigots being more likely to spew to the camera, eh ? |
#71
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
200 quid for chips?
Weatherlawyer wrote
Rod Speed wrote With a record like that, only a fool like you takes any notice of what they claim the result of brexit will be. With the record we call history only a fool would vote for a politician. There is no one else to vote for. |
#72
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
200 quid for chips? Was potato ballot boxes
On Tuesday, 12 July 2016 18:49:34 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
Stuffing them with potatoes doesn't work these days. Especially the crisp rejoinder variety. |
#73
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
200 quid for chips?
On Tuesday, 12 July 2016 20:26:31 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
Weatherlawyer wrote Rod Speed wrote With a record like that, only a fool like you takes any notice of what they claim the result of brexit will be. With the record we call history only a fool would vote for a politician. There is no one else to vote for. You have a deplorable grasp of the facts. You at no time refer to the materials used in their manufacture and you expect anyone to reply in agreement? Volts Not Votes! should be your motto; now get plugged in. Isn't ther a socket above your neck that you can stick you cock-up. You French freedom fryer. |
#74
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
200 quid for chips?
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote: Dave Plowman (News) wrote Rod Speed wrote Dave Plowman (News) wrote I'd say there's little doubt that the vote was won by those whose aim was to end immigration. More fool you. That is nothing even remotely like a majority of those who bothered to vote. Doesn't need to be the majority, cretin. Only enough to swing the vote. Have fun substantiating the claim that it was those that 'swung the vote' Have even more fun trying to prove me wrong. -- *One tequila, two tequila, three tequila, floor. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#75
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
200 quid for chips?
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In , Rod wrote: Dave Plowman wrote Rod wrote Dave Plowman wrote I'd say there's little doubt that the vote was won by those whose aim was to end immigration. More fool you. That is nothing even remotely like a majority of those who bothered to vote. Doesn't need to be the majority, cretin. Only enough to swing the vote. Have fun substantiating the claim that it was those that 'swung the vote' Have even more fun trying to prove me wrong. There is no necessity to prove you wrong. You voted to be governed by an unelected group in Brussels. You also voted for more immigration. You also voted for lower wages for British workers. Fortunately you lost. You are free to apply for EU citizenship, or alternatively go back to your home country of Scotland, who may wish to go independent and destroy the standard of living which they enjoy at the expense of the English taxpayers. I'd sooner work to achieve a successful England and Wales, with Northern Ireland and Scotland free to go their own ways and also to have a government which is responsible to me, which I can remove if it fails! |
#76
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
200 quid for chips?
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote Dave Plowman (News) wrote Rod Speed wrote Dave Plowman (News) wrote I'd say there's little doubt that the vote was won by those whose aim was to end immigration. More fool you. That is nothing even remotely like a majority of those who bothered to vote. Doesn't need to be the majority, cretin. Only enough to swing the vote. Have fun substantiating the claim that it was those that 'swung the vote' Have even more fun trying to prove me wrong. YOU made the claim. YOU get to do the proving. THAT'S how it works. |
#77
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
200 quid for chips?
On Wednesday, 13 July 2016 20:31:54 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote Rod Speed wrote Dave Plowman (News) wrote Rod Speed wrote Dave Plowman (News) wrote I'd say there's little doubt that the vote was won by those whose aim was to end immigration. More fool you. That is nothing even remotely like a majority of those who bothered to vote. Doesn't need to be the majority, cretin. Only enough to swing the vote. Have fun substantiating the claim that it was those that 'swung the vote' Have even more fun trying to prove me wrong. YOU made the claim. YOU get to do the proving. THAT'S how it works. How it works is no-one cares what you claim. |
#78
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
200 quid for chips?
On Wednesday, 13 July 2016 20:02:03 UTC+1, Capitol wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote: Have even more fun trying to prove me wrong. There is no necessity to prove you wrong. You voted to be governed by an unelected group in Brussels. You also voted for more immigration. You also voted for lower wages for British workers. Fortunately you lost. You are free to apply for EU citizenship, or alternatively go back to your home country of Scotland, who may wish to go independent and destroy the standard of living which they enjoy at the expense of the English taxpayers. I'd sooner work to achieve a successful England and Wales, with Northern Ireland and Scotland free to go their own ways and also to have a government which is responsible to me, which I can remove if it fails! * when NT |
#79
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
200 quid for chips?
wrote
Rod Speed wrote Dave Plowman (News) wrote Rod Speed wrote Dave Plowman (News) wrote Rod Speed wrote Dave Plowman (News) wrote I'd say there's little doubt that the vote was won by those whose aim was to end immigration. More fool you. That is nothing even remotely like a majority of those who bothered to vote. Doesn't need to be the majority, cretin. Only enough to swing the vote. Have fun substantiating the claim that it was those that 'swung the vote' Have even more fun trying to prove me wrong. YOU made the claim. YOU get to do the proving. THAT'S how it works. How it works is no-one cares what you claim. I made no claim. |
#80
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
200 quid for chips?
In article ,
Capitol wrote: England and Wales, with Northern Ireland and Scotland free to go their own ways and also to have a government which is responsible to me, which I can remove if it fails! Good to see the little Englanders alive and spewing. -- *Why don't sheep shrink when it rains? Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Million quid for doing nothing? | UK diy | |||
OT - 400 quid a week in electricity | UK diy | |||
looking for table saw under 200 quid | UK diy | |||
Yep these are worth four quid | UK diy | |||
B&Q: found in the 1-quid bin | UK diy |