On Friday, 19 January 2018 14:06:35 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 02:23:50 -0800 (PST), whisky-dave
wrote:

snip bizarre ramblings

I never, ever, said you *could* count who someone who didn't vote or
who spoiled their paper would have voted FOR, had they voted.

So did they vote or not ?

Go on, see if you can work it out for yourself.

As I said I don't know. They could have just had a wank in the voting booth.
Did you vote ?



All I
have ever said is that you know what they DIDN'T vote for,

No ones really interested in who we didnlt vote for

Some are. They are often called 'floating voters' and so good targets
for persuasion.

persuasion, which way if they didn't vote you don't know and if they didn't vote what makes you sure they will ever vote.
Or if they do they might just draw a penis or a NOTA.




the idea is to count the number of votes and see who gets the most.

Well done.

1/3 of the electorate voted leave (fact).
2/3 of the electorate didn't vote leave (fact).

So we leave (maybe).

and 2/3 didn't vote to remain, you've forgotten that (fact)
in FACT the majority didn't vote to remain.


especially
when there was only one outcome that would change the status quo (like
the EU referendum and not like the local or general elections).

meaningless and Irrelivant,

To you I'm guessing.

and to all those that voted, as they only found two options on the ballot paper whereas yuo seem to think there were more options than the two shown.




especailly when you claim that a NOTA is meant to mean something.

It generally does, yes.

What does it mean then ?
That you want to remain ?
That you want to leave ?
Those counting the votes really need to kn ow which pile to put you in.
They don't even take much notice when a tiny fraction 0.1% spoil their paper, too small a number to care even if every NOTA and a penis are taken as votes to remain MORE people still voted to leave.

I don't know which it is and niether do those counting the votes.


If someone simply CBA to vote they just don't
bother.

Is that a common thing for those that want to remain ?

If they wish to retain the right to vote

you don;t get the right to vote taken away from you if yuo don;t vote.

but can't make an
informed decision then an 'NOTA' is an accepted and understood way of
doing that.

Yes it means you don't care, haven't a clue, or think there's a better way or system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/None_of_the_above

which INCLUDING the penis drawers and those that couldn't work out how many boxes to tick amounted to 0.08%
Why should anyone take any notice of them when the majority actually voted to leave by 3.78% that's nearly 50 times the number of invalid votes.


Just suppose the vote counted was 10% remain 10% leave and 40% put NOTA .
Would that have changed the status quo ?

What do you think? Do you actually have a point yet?

SO tell me what should the result have been if the majoroty had put NOTA
Which to mean means they didnlt vote to remain and they didnlt vote to leave.



Unlike actually measuring the *fact* that only ~1/3rd of the
electorate voted *to change the status quo*, for example.

So.
there was no box on the paper about changing the status quo.

Yes there was, it was called 'Leave' and only 1/3rd of the electorate
ticked it.

And less than that ticked the remain box.

On 19/01/2018 09:38, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Huge
wrote:
On 2018-01-18, Max Demian wrote:
On 18/01/2018 14:37, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I really can't see why we can't have identity cards.Â* Not meaning
they'd
have to be carried at all times, of course. But would be very useful
for
this sort of thing. And any thing else where identity proof is
needed. For
those who don't have a driving licence. Passport. Travel card. Works
identity card etc. Ie, very, very few.

How are you going to get the photo verified if you don't have a tame
vicar?

Christ on a bicycle. By going down in person. Even staff at council
offices ought to be able to look at you, look at the photo, and agree
these are the same person. They're only going to make you such a card
if you're on the electoral register, so bringing up your details and
scanning the photo to go on the card should be the work of a moment.

How will they know you are who you say you are?

--
Max Demian

On 19/01/2018 00:20, Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 20:02:34 +0000, Max Demian wrote:
On 18/01/2018 14:37, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Huge wrote:
On 2018-01-18, Andy Burns wrote:
whisky-dave wrote:

Strange they don't use barcodes at polling stations

You don't need to take the postcard or any form of ID to the polling
station.

At least not for the moment. The Government are thinking of
introducing an ID requirement.

I really can't see why we can't have identity cards. Not meaning
they'd have to be carried at all times, of course. But would be very
useful for this sort of thing. And any thing else where identity proof
is needed. For those who don't have a driving licence. Passport. Travel
card. Works identity card etc. Ie, very, very few.

How are you going to get the photo verified if you don't have a tame
vicar?

I know a Canon! And I went to dinner with an Archbishop of Canterbury
once...

But do you know them personally (rather than professionally)?

--
Max Demian

On Friday, 19 January 2018 15:46:04 UTC, Max Demian wrote:
On 19/01/2018 00:20, Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 20:02:34 +0000, Max Demian wrote:
On 18/01/2018 14:37, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Huge wrote:
On 2018-01-18, Andy Burns wrote:
whisky-dave wrote:

Strange they don't use barcodes at polling stations

You don't need to take the postcard or any form of ID to the polling
station.

At least not for the moment. The Government are thinking of
introducing an ID requirement.

I really can't see why we can't have identity cards. Not meaning
they'd have to be carried at all times, of course. But would be very
useful for this sort of thing. And any thing else where identity proof
is needed. For those who don't have a driving licence. Passport. Travel
card. Works identity card etc. Ie, very, very few.

How are you going to get the photo verified if you don't have a tame
vicar?

I know a Canon! And I went to dinner with an Archbishop of Canterbury
once...

But do you know them personally (rather than professionally)?

Yes and what is the protocol, do you approach them with your trousers neatly folded over the left or right arm ?

On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 14:28:18 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

snip

1/3 of the electorate voted leave (fact).
2/3 of the electorate didn't vote leave (fact).

This old chestnut!

Hmmm ... c h e s t n u t s ... drool ;-)

16,141,241 of the electorate voted Remain (fact)

Ah, people that rushed out to vote for what they already had. Yeah,
makes sense.

30,358,760 of the electorate didn't vote Remain (fact).

Ah, people that rushed out to vote for what they already had. Yeah,
makes sense.

for every 100 voters for Remain, 108 voted for Leave

Nope, 1/3rd voted to change the status quo, the other 2/3rds didn't,
the burden lay entirely on those *actively / wanting* to CHANGE FROM
the *status quo* who need to do that. Full stop.

You are in a space capsule with two others on a tried and tested
trajectory to a safe landing. ONE of you says, 'ere, I think that if
we change the angle a bit, we will get down quicker, so, who is up for
it?', do you think that a lack of vote is any different from a
negative vote (not that one was called for or required in that case
either) when it comes to making that sort of *decision to change*?

It's not making *a decision* to retain the status quo, it's a
consequence of not *choosing* to do anything else / different.

So we leave (maybe).

That is the country's wish, I would hope so.

We only know that it's 1/3 of the electorates wish ... and we
specifically know it's against the wishes of at least another 1/3rd. I
would hope we *didn't* act on something so split.

snip

Unlike actually measuring the *fact* that only ~1/3rd of the
electorate voted *to change the status quo*, for example.

Well 65% didn't oppose change is perhaps a more accurate picture

Only if you count (let's say) apathy as an acceptance of change which
is not logical. To get why you would need a reasonable EQ and I'm not
sure that's a particular trait of most fanatic brexiteers. ;-(

So.
there was no box on the paper about changing the status quo.

Yes there was, it was called 'Leave' and only 1/3rd of the electorate
ticked it.

Quite, and they were in a minority of the electorate.

Frightening isn't it. Hopefully we (the electorate) will actually be
able to have the final say, once we have the faintest idea what Brexit
actually means (as it may be so far away from what most people thought
they were voting for, even they wouldn't want it).

“If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy”

Cheers, T i m

On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 14:45:03 +0000, Andy Burns
wrote:

T i m wrote:

1/3 of the electorate voted leave (fact).
2/3 of the electorate didn't vote leave (fact).

It doesn't matter how many times you state that,
it'll never be the same as 2/3 of the electorate voting to stay,

But it is Andy.

"Hands up who wants to leave the EU?"
counts 1/3rd of the electorate
"Thanks guys, from that we have learned that only 1/3 of you [1]
*actually want* to leave the EU, so we won't.

I know what did happen. I suggesting what should have happened.

Since you weren't interested enough to cast your vote

How did you manage to come to that conclusion? Was it the same
technique you used to place *your* vote? (I really hope not).

you can't really
talk.

Thanks. This is what you call 'democracy' is it Andy?

Cheers, T i m

[1] And not just near 1/2 either, the 2/3rds Farage required before it
was considered 'a win'.

On Friday, 19 January 2018 17:18:39 UTC, T i m wrote:



€œIf a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy€�

Yep that's the idea, if you want something vote for it, took a while but perhaps you've sussed how it works now.

Be interesting to see what the next thing the public will be asked to vote on and to see how that goes.

Presonlly I think it's a good idea to get peolpe in to the practice of voting fopr what they want rather than staying at honme sitting on the sofa to get what they want.





Cheers, T i m

T i m wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

it'll never be the same as 2/3 of the electorate voting to stay

I know what did happen. I suggesting what should have happened.

I would have agreed with you, if someone had suggested setting e.g. a
specific majority before the referendum; but nobody did, and it's
nonsense to suggest changing it afterwards.

Since you weren't interested enough to cast your vote

How did you manage to come to that conclusion?

Well, if you were interested, why didn't you vote?

you can't really talk.

Thanks. This is what you call 'democracy' is it Andy?

Well ... yes. If you don't participate you have literally *not* had
your say when you had the chance to.

I'm not trying to be funny, but you're one of the people who keep
raising the "2/3 didn't vote for" as though it is equivalent to "2/3
voted against" when it just isn't.

If the referendum hadn't been on Brexit, but instead had been on paying
pensions to all pets over 11 years old, I'd still be arguing that a
result is a result.

whisky-dave wrote:

Be interesting to see what the next thing the public will be asked to vote on

You think any politician is going to touch another referendum this century?

On 19/01/2018 17:54, Andy Burns wrote:
T i m wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

it'll never be the same as 2/3 of the electorate voting to stay

I know what did happen. I suggesting what should have happened.

I would have agreed with you, if someone had suggested setting e.g. a
specific majority before the referendum; but nobody did, and it's
nonsense to suggest changing it afterwards.

The Scottish vote a while ago required a specific percentage of the
electorate to vote for independence. In other words there was no
distinction between a stay vote or no vote at all, therefore those
staying in the UK didn't bother to vote.

A result was those voting for independence won with a landslide
majority, but still lost the vote. That isn't democracy.

Since you weren't interested enough to cast your vote

How did you manage to come to that conclusion?

Well, if you were interested, why didn't you vote?

you can't really talk.

Thanks. This is what you call 'democracy' is it Andy?

Well ... yes.Â*Â* If you don't participate you have literally *not* had
your say when you had the chance to.

I'm not trying to be funny, but you're one of the people who keep
raising the "2/3 didn't vote for" as though it is equivalent to "2/3
voted against" when it just isn't.

If the referendum hadn't been on Brexit, but instead had been on paying
pensions to all pets over 11 years old, I'd still be arguing that a
result is a result.

Poor losers can't get over the simple fact that for every Remain vote
there were 108 for Brexit.

Made worse if you couldn't be bothered to vote, you were in effect
voting for the winners.

Anyone thinking that anyone who couldn't be bothered to vote is a
remainer isn't very bright.

Thankfully even Remain politicians can generally accept the result of a
referendum, with a few loser exceptions.

On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 17:54:18 +0000, Andy Burns
wrote:

T i m wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

it'll never be the same as 2/3 of the electorate voting to stay

I know what did happen. I suggesting what should have happened.

I would have agreed with you, if someone had suggested setting e.g. a
specific majority before the referendum; but nobody did, and it's
nonsense to suggest changing it afterwards.

It may be to you because you obviously consider such still to be
democratic.

Since you weren't interested enough to cast your vote

How did you manage to come to that conclusion?

Well, if you were interested, why didn't you vote?

Or you could just re-phrase that as an unloaded question, if you are
actually interested in the answer?

you can't really talk.

Thanks. This is what you call 'democracy' is it Andy?

Well ... yes. If you don't participate you have literally *not* had
your say when you had the chance to.

That was then, you are trying to limit my freedom of speech now.

I'm not trying to be funny, but you're one of the people who keep
raising the "2/3 didn't vote for" as though it is equivalent to "2/3
voted against" when it just isn't.

No, I have never said the two were the same, ever. What you seem to be
missing (intentionally or otherwise) is the spirit, the human / real
world feeling, cause and effect behind / with all of this. We aren't
asking the pupils to vote for the best teacher, we are asking them
(us, where the vast majority have the intellectual and factual insight
of children on this matter) to decide if they should demolish the
existing school and move into another (yet unknown) one.

If the referendum hadn't been on Brexit, but instead had been on paying
pensions to all pets over 11 years old, I'd still be arguing that a
result is a result.

And you would be doing it without me because *that* wouldn't impact
millions of people into the distant future? ;-(

So, we asked people to make a binary decision about an analogue
subject without giving them any facts.

If you consider those grounds to be likely (at least) to unsure we
have a good chance of coming out of this better off AND that any
outcome to still democratically reflect the actual will of the people,
they we are obviously working from two completely different bases.

Mr Davis said: “If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be
a democracy”.

So, given 'some' were tricked into voting without actually knowing
what they were voting for (some of us realised we didn't have the
facts and therefore *couldn't* vote), or didn't need to be tricked
because they were already on a crusade for some reason or another
(many bogus and some pretty unpleasant) and with no countable 'We
don't know what we are voting for yet' (defer referendum till after we
do or at least know more) option, many (a third!) didn't vote at all.

So, ignoring what has happened Andy ... and the majority margin thing
.... does the position you see us in now sit comfortable with you?

Do you *believe* a fairly informed public have exercised their
democratic vote and we are *all* now heading in the same positive
direction? Or is it that the whole thing is a mess and could easily be
just nullified, we wait for the final deal and *then* give people the
chance to *actually* vote on the *facts*?

The big question shouldn't be why I didn't vote but how anyone
(outside the fanatics) did.

Heads or tails anyone? ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 18:25:51 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

snip

The Scottish vote a while ago required a specific percentage of the
electorate to vote for independence. In other words there was no
distinction between a stay vote or no vote at all, therefore those
staying in the UK didn't bother to vote.

As it should be. There should be no requirement to vote for what you
already have, the default, the status quo. The concept is stupid and
pointless.

Hands up who would like an ice cream? counts hands

WTF would you *then* ask:

"Hands up who doesn't want an ice cream" counts hands
and then
"Hands up who doesn't care or can't answer for some reason?" counts
hands

The ONLY count that matters to the question is now many people WANT
ice creams.

If the intention is that everone *will* be forced to have an ice cream
if the vote went that way, I'd hope that would only be done when at
least 2/3rds voted for it.


A result was those voting for independence won with a landslide
majority, but still lost the vote.

Ok.

That isn't democracy.

IYHO I'm guessing.

snip

Cheers, T i m

"Dave Plowman (News)" Wrote in message:
In article ,
jim k wrote:
I'd take my chances over losing a wallet or being pick pocketed.


Ah yes the joys of londinium

How often did you lose wallets or get pickpocketed whilst you
still carried them?

I never have carried a wallet every day. I only take it when I know it
will be needed. And I've never lost one - unlike pals who always carry one.

Never quite understood the need to carry all your credit cards etc at all
times.


How unusual.
I never leave the house without mine, with say 50 or 100 odd in
cash & all active cards in it.
I would feel rather limited without.

--
Jim K


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

whisky-dave Wrote in message:
On Friday, 19 January 2018 15:46:04 UTC, Max Demian wrote:
On 19/01/2018 00:20, Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 20:02:34 +0000, Max Demian wrote:
On 18/01/2018 14:37, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Huge wrote:
On 2018-01-18, Andy Burns wrote:
whisky-dave wrote:

Strange they don't use barcodes at polling stations

You don't need to take the postcard or any form of ID to the polling
station.

At least not for the moment. The Government are thinking of
introducing an ID requirement.

I really can't see why we can't have identity cards. Not meaning
they'd have to be carried at all times, of course. But would be very
useful for this sort of thing. And any thing else where identity proof
is needed. For those who don't have a driving licence. Passport. Travel
card. Works identity card etc. Ie, very, very few.

How are you going to get the photo verified if you don't have a tame
vicar?

I know a Canon! And I went to dinner with an Archbishop of Canterbury
once...

But do you know them personally (rather than professionally)?

Yes and what is the protocol, do you approach them with your trousers neatly folded over the left or right arm ?



Shurely round the ankles?

--
Jim K


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

On 19/01/2018 19:03, jim wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" Wrote in message:
In article ,
jim k wrote:
I'd take my chances over losing a wallet or being pick pocketed.


Ah yes the joys of londinium

How often did you lose wallets or get pickpocketed whilst you
still carried them?

I never have carried a wallet every day. I only take it when I know it
will be needed. And I've never lost one - unlike pals who always carry one.

Never quite understood the need to carry all your credit cards etc at all
times.


How unusual.
I never leave the house without mine, with say 50 or 100 odd in
cash & all active cards in it.
I would feel rather limited without.

Why *all* your cards? So you will lose *all* of them at the same time? I
carry two (in case one fails); I leave the others at home plus my debit
card (unless I'm drawing out cash), and a Santander cash card I keep in
case I lose access with my debit card for some reason.

--
Max Demian

On 19/01/2018 18:54, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 18:25:51 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

snip

The Scottish vote a while ago required a specific percentage of the
electorate to vote for independence. In other words there was no
distinction between a stay vote or no vote at all, therefore those
staying in the UK didn't bother to vote.

As it should be.

The result was Nationalist said it proved there was overwhelming support
for independence and resulting in the election of a nationalist party.
Hence the Scottish has another referendum.

There should be no requirement to vote for what you
already have, the default, the status quo. The concept is stupid and
pointless.

I suppose you would say the same about a government, that until 60% of
the electorate voted for an alternative party, the current one should stay?

Hands up who would like an ice cream? counts hands

That isn't how democracy works, and it's a silly childish example.

snip poor childish analogy

You sound the sort to force ice cream on someone who doesn't want one?

A result was those voting for independence won with a landslide
majority, but still lost the vote.

Ok.

That isn't democracy.

IYHO I'm guessing.

Poor losers can't get over the simple fact that for every Remain vote
there were 108 for Brexit.

Made worse if you couldn't be bothered to vote, you were in effect
voting for the winners.

Anyone thinking that anyone who couldn't be bothered to vote is a
remainer isn't very bright.

On 19/01/2018 17:27, T i m wrote:
"Hands up who wants to leave the EU?"
counts 1/3rd of the electorate
"Thanks guys, from that we have learned that only 1/3 of you [1]
*actually want* to leave the EU, so we won't.

"The EU has changed since we joined. Hands up who wants to stay in?"

Andy

On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 15:45:57 +0000, Max Demian wrote:

On 19/01/2018 00:20, Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 20:02:34 +0000, Max Demian wrote:
On 18/01/2018 14:37, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Huge wrote:
On 2018-01-18, Andy Burns wrote:
whisky-dave wrote:

Strange they don't use barcodes at polling stations

You don't need to take the postcard or any form of ID to the
polling station.

At least not for the moment. The Government are thinking of
introducing an ID requirement.

I really can't see why we can't have identity cards. Not meaning
they'd have to be carried at all times, of course. But would be very
useful for this sort of thing. And any thing else where identity
proof is needed. For those who don't have a driving licence.
Passport. Travel card. Works identity card etc. Ie, very, very few.

How are you going to get the photo verified if you don't have a tame
vicar?

I know a Canon! And I went to dinner with an Archbishop of Canterbury
once...

But do you know them personally (rather than professionally)?

I know the Canon personally.

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

Tim Lamb wrote:

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Martin Brown wrote:
I have lived in two countries with ID cards - Japan and Belgium. They
work perfectly well although you have to carry them they are seldom
needed unless you are doing something that requires checking ID or get
yourself arrested. In the latter case failing to carry ID is added to
the list of charges if you do not produce the card when arrested.

I'm really not sure why people are so against identity cards. But are
happy enough to have to use other means when needed (or do without the
service that needs proof of identity - unlikely). As has been stated, not
everyone had a driving licence etc.

Orwell, 1984?

Post WW2 reaction to identity carrying required by occupation forces?

Perhaps post WW2 reaction to officious police, air raid wardens and
petty officials demanding ID?

--

Roger Hayter

On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 21:02:03 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

snip anti democracy / denial propaganda

Anyone thinking that anyone who couldn't be bothered to vote is a
remainer isn't very bright.

And from that ... anyone who doesn't understand why someone couldn't
vote probably has low IQ or is on a fanatic crusade.

Ask me to vote again once we know what we are actually voting on.

Much of what I and others have been saying since the beginning of this
whole farce is already being discussed (even Fariage discussing a
second referendum). Obviously some people understand that with a
country split near 50:50, and only 1/3rd of the electorate deciding
what happens to everyone, we aren't likely to be seeing the real 'will
of the people'.

However, I really hope your coin toss turns out to be a lucky one, for
all our sakes.

But no, you *know* how it's all going to turn out don't you [1], how
much it's all going to cost, exactly what you will get from the things
all the Brexiteers wanted ... because you voted for it eh.

Cheers, T i m

[1] Care to write a list so we can see how it compares to what we do
eventually end up with? Should be easy, with you being so confident
etc.

On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 21:58:06 +0000, Vir Campestris
wrote:

On 19/01/2018 17:27, T i m wrote:
"Hands up who wants to leave the EU?"
counts 1/3rd of the electorate
"Thanks guys, from that we have learned that only 1/3 of you [1]
*actually want* to leave the EU, so we won't.

"The EU has changed since we joined. Hands up who wants to stay in?"

That might have been a more valid question Andy. My personal question
would be 'what percentage of the UK electorate had any opinions on
that before Firage started stirring it all up'?

Cheers, T i m

In article , Roger Hayter
wrote:
Tim Lamb wrote:

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article , Martin Brown
wrote:
I have lived in two countries with ID cards - Japan and Belgium.
They work perfectly well although you have to carry them they are
seldom needed unless you are doing something that requires checking
ID or get yourself arrested. In the latter case failing to carry ID
is added to the list of charges if you do not produce the card when
arrested.

I'm really not sure why people are so against identity cards. But are
happy enough to have to use other means when needed (or do without the
service that needs proof of identity - unlikely). As has been stated,
not everyone had a driving licence etc.

Orwell, 1984?

Post WW2 reaction to identity carrying required by occupation forces?

Perhaps post WW2 reaction to officious police, air raid wardens and petty
officials demanding ID?

I suspect reaction to what was happening in South Africa.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

In article ,
Andy Burns writes:
Harry Bloomfield wrote:

when there are multiple cards, I have
always been told they cannot read the card.

It says that, because it doesn't want to bother reading multiple cards.

My point was that it could read dozens of cards if it wanted to, but
then it would have to get you to pick on screen which one you intended
to pay with.

I'm told that in a similar situation Oyster readers just 'randomly' pick
one card, rather than refusing to read any of them, which could lead to
you not getting the proper discounts.

Oyster readers detect multiple cards. If there's a supervisor there,
they will tell you why the scan was rejected.
(Looks like it's error 71 from a google search.)

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On 20/01/2018 00:04, T i m wrote:
That might have been a more valid question Andy. My personal question
would be 'what percentage of the UK electorate had any opinions on
that before Firage started stirring it all up'?

Probably less than half.

Andy

On Sun, 21 Jan 2018 21:11:19 +0000, Vir Campestris
wrote:

On 20/01/2018 00:04, T i m wrote:
That might have been a more valid question Andy. My personal question
would be 'what percentage of the UK electorate had any opinions on
that before Firage started stirring it all up'?

Probably less than half.

I'd say it was probably far far less than half.

*No one* ever brought into discussion, or engaged me in discussion, us
leaving the EU, before the whole referendum thing was started.

The only exception was the one friend who we lost to UKIP years and
years ago.

Cheers, T i m

On Friday, 19 January 2018 18:12:22 UTC, Andy Burns wrote:
whisky-dave wrote:

Be interesting to see what the next thing the public will be asked to vote on

You think any politician is going to touch another referendum this century?

They may we;; have to but I;m not sur what words they will use.
Will tehy use the word referendum or will it just be a vote on something ?

On Friday, 19 January 2018 19:06:23 UTC, jim wrote:
whisky-dave Wrote in message:
On Friday, 19 January 2018 15:46:04 UTC, Max Demian wrote:
On 19/01/2018 00:20, Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 20:02:34 +0000, Max Demian wrote:
On 18/01/2018 14:37, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Huge wrote:
On 2018-01-18, Andy Burns wrote:
whisky-dave wrote:

Strange they don't use barcodes at polling stations

You don't need to take the postcard or any form of ID to the polling
station.

At least not for the moment. The Government are thinking of
introducing an ID requirement.

I really can't see why we can't have identity cards. Not meaning
they'd have to be carried at all times, of course. But would be very
useful for this sort of thing. And any thing else where identity proof
is needed. For those who don't have a driving licence. Passport. Travel
card. Works identity card etc. Ie, very, very few.

How are you going to get the photo verified if you don't have a tame
vicar?

I know a Canon! And I went to dinner with an Archbishop of Canterbury
once...

But do you know them personally (rather than professionally)?

Yes and what is the protocol, do you approach them with your trousers neatly folded over the left or right arm ?



Shurely round the ankles?

You can't march with your trousers around your ankles

whisky-dave Wrote in message:
On Friday, 19 January 2018 19:06:23 UTC, jim wrote:
whisky-dave Wrote in message:
On Friday, 19 January 2018 15:46:04 UTC, Max Demian wrote:
On 19/01/2018 00:20, Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 20:02:34 +0000, Max Demian wrote:
On 18/01/2018 14:37, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Huge wrote:
On 2018-01-18, Andy Burns wrote:
whisky-dave wrote:

Strange they don't use barcodes at polling stations

You don't need to take the postcard or any form of ID to the polling
station.

At least not for the moment. The Government are thinking of
introducing an ID requirement.

I really can't see why we can't have identity cards. Not meaning
they'd have to be carried at all times, of course. But would be very
useful for this sort of thing. And any thing else where identity proof
is needed. For those who don't have a driving licence. Passport. Travel
card. Works identity card etc. Ie, very, very few.

How are you going to get the photo verified if you don't have a tame
vicar?

I know a Canon! And I went to dinner with an Archbishop of Canterbury
once...

But do you know them personally (rather than professionally)?

Yes and what is the protocol, do you approach them with your trousers neatly folded over the left or right arm ?



Shurely round the ankles?

You can't march with your trousers around your ankles


Nor run away.....
--
Jim K


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/