Stick a days visitors parking voucher in the windscreen at 1pm and it
must be valid until 1pm the next day.

A day is 24 hours.

--
Adam

On Saturday, 9 March 2019 19:36:47 UTC, ARW wrote:
Stick a days visitors parking voucher in the windscreen at 1pm and it
must be valid until 1pm the next day.
A day is 24 hours.

No, because if you were claiming expenses you'd claim two lunches and one dinner.

Owain

On 2019-03-09 12:43 p.m., wrote:
On Saturday, 9 March 2019 19:36:47 UTC, ARW wrote:
Stick a days visitors parking voucher in the windscreen at 1pm and it
must be valid until 1pm the next day.
A day is 24 hours.

No, because if you were claiming expenses you'd claim two lunches and one dinner.

Owain


it says on the voucher

On Sat, 9 Mar 2019 19:36:46 +0000, ARW
wrote:

Stick a days visitors parking voucher in the windscreen at 1pm and it
must be valid until 1pm the next day.

A day is 24 hours.

Ah, but is it still say, the 8th day of the month or did you go into
the 'next day'?

If you turned up at Alton Towers at 3pm and bought a day ticket, would
you expect to be able to stay there till 3pm the next day?

Is the parking permit marked 'valid for 24 hours' or 'one day'? ;-)

(I get the issue though).

Cheers, T i m

On 09/03/2019 19:56, % wrote:
On 2019-03-09 12:43 p.m., wrote:
On Saturday, 9 March 2019 19:36:47 UTC, ARWÂ* wrote:
Stick a days visitors parking voucher in the windscreen at 1pm and it
must be valid until 1pm the next day.
A day is 24 hours.

No, because if you were claiming expenses you'd claim two lunches and
one dinner.

Owain


it says on the voucher

It does not.

--
Adam

On 09/03/2019 20:06, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 9 Mar 2019 19:36:46 +0000, ARW
wrote:

Stick a days visitors parking voucher in the windscreen at 1pm and it
must be valid until 1pm the next day.

A day is 24 hours.

Ah, but is it still say, the 8th day of the month or did you go into
the 'next day'?

If you turned up at Alton Towers at 3pm and bought a day ticket, would
you expect to be able to stay there till 3pm the next day?

Is the parking permit marked 'valid for 24 hours' or 'one day'? ;-)

(I get the issue though).


OK so it says 1 days parking. And a day is 24 hours.

I have emailed the council to ask them and I also asked them if it is
normal for parking attendants[1] to park on double yellow lines and then
start issuing tickets to cars parked on the double yellow lines.


[1] A ****s job that only a **** will do. I did however film the ****s
actions.



--
Adam

On 09/03/2019 19:36, ARW wrote:
Stick a days visitors parking voucher in the windscreen at 1pm and it
must be valid until 1pm the next day.

A day is 24 hours.


Sadly I don't think there's a general rule. Our vouchers for visitors
(in residents' parking zone) are only valid for the calendar day they
are activated. A clue to that is the way you scratch out the month and
date. There's no way to indicate the _time_ it was activated. But as
so often it comes down to what's in the fine (but legible!) print.

And it's no comfort to you that it's not just parking vouchers that can
cause confusion. Transport for London sell One Day Travelcards.
They're valid until 04:29 the next morning. Not good value for people
who buy one in the evening and use it for just one journey.


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

On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 04:04:24 +0000, ARW
wrote:

snip

Is the parking permit marked 'valid for 24 hours' or 'one day'? ;-)

(I get the issue though).


OK so it says 1 days parking. And a day is 24 hours.

Yes, so if it says you heat a meal in an oven for 20 minutes, would
you do say 15 mins today and the remaining 5 the next, when you are
ready to eat it? The point is that yes, whilst 'a day' is 24 hours, it
isn't how many things interpret the term. A 'day ticket' for fishing
is just that, valid on the day you bought it and often excluding night
fishing (so would typically expire at dusk, no matter what time you
bought it). Neither would you be able to claim the unused hours the
next day because that's a 'different day'.

I have emailed the council to ask them

I bet I can predict the outcome. ;-)

and I also asked them if it is
normal for parking attendants[1] to park on double yellow lines and then
start issuing tickets to cars parked on the double yellow lines.

Interesting one (that I'm sure someone here could answer from a legal
viewpoint). Like is it acceptable for the police to speed and jump
traffic lights whilst on a shout? (I believe the answer is 'yes', but
they are still personally responsible for any repercussions they
cause).

snip

If you weren't able to get somewhere on time because of someone
parking inappropriately, would you not mind?

Cheers, T i m

On 09/03/2019 19:36, ARW wrote:
Stick a days visitors parking voucher in the windscreen at 1pm and it
must be valid until 1pm the next day.

A day is 24 hours.

A day IS 24 hours but I suspect in this case it is the 24 hours(ish)
from midnight( well 0.0:00...1) to midnight( well 23.59:99...9 ) later
that same day

On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 04:04:24 +0000, ARW
wrote:

On 09/03/2019 20:06, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 9 Mar 2019 19:36:46 +0000, ARW
wrote:

Stick a days visitors parking voucher in the windscreen at 1pm and it
must be valid until 1pm the next day.

A day is 24 hours.

Ah, but is it still say, the 8th day of the month or did you go into
the 'next day'?

If you turned up at Alton Towers at 3pm and bought a day ticket, would
you expect to be able to stay there till 3pm the next day?

Is the parking permit marked 'valid for 24 hours' or 'one day'? ;-)

(I get the issue though).


OK so it says 1 days parking. And a day is 24 hours.

I have emailed the council to ask them and I also asked them if it is
normal for parking attendants[1] to park on double yellow lines and then
start issuing tickets to cars parked on the double yellow lines.


[1] A ****s job that only a **** will do. I did however film the ****s
actions.

Somewhere on the ticket or on the machine it will say that purchasing
the ticket means accepting the terms and conditions laid down by the
council, so I'm sorry but you are stuffed.

Traffic wardens are devious, I staggered out of a pub in the town to
feed the meter a few years back to find that with three minutes to go
the nasty little pratt issuing tickets was writing out one for my car.
I did inform him of my contempt for his actions and watched him delete
the ticket before sticking another one on.

A few pints later I read the "small print" on the machine. It seems I
should have removed the car and not returned for an hour.

I should have made a complaint that the councils warden was dishonest
for writing the ticket before time and incompetent for not issuing me
with a ticket for feeding the meter.


Councils use the excuse that they are there to raise money on behalf
of the people that they are supposed to work for. Sadly they dont,
they just behave like a large corrupt private company with little
chance of being held responsible for their actions.

I don't understand why these claims companies dont offer to take on
council negligence. The drawn out fight to try to get the slightest
wrong put right by my UK council is a time consuming nightmare. More
than once I have considered court action, although eventually the
stupid ******* do back down.

AB

On 09/03/2019 19:36, ARW wrote:
Stick a days visitors parking voucher in the windscreen at 1pm and it
must be valid until 1pm the next day.

You don't believe that.

A day is 24 hours.
Cheers
--
Clive

On 10/03/2019 10:57, T i m wrote:

Interesting one (that I'm sure someone here could answer from a legal
viewpoint). Like is it acceptable for the police to speed and jump
traffic lights whilst on a shout? (I believe the answer is 'yes', but
they are still personally responsible for any repercussions they
cause).

They can be done for dangerous driving if it is dangerous.

Ambulances and fire engines can exceed the speed limit.
They are not supposed to jump red lights, etc. but I am not going to
stop them.


snip

If you weren't able to get somewhere on time because of someone
parking inappropriately, would you not mind?

Cheers, T i m


The wife got a parking ticket recently, I got it cancelled.

I have never had a parking ticket in over 40 years of driving.

Or any other fine.

I did go through a red light in Paris once but there wasn't anyone to
see it.

On 10/03/2019 12:07, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp Esq wrote:
On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 04:04:24 +0000, ARW
wrote:

On 09/03/2019 20:06, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 9 Mar 2019 19:36:46 +0000, ARW
wrote:

Stick a days visitors parking voucher in the windscreen at 1pm and it
must be valid until 1pm the next day.

A day is 24 hours.

Ah, but is it still say, the 8th day of the month or did you go into
the 'next day'?

If you turned up at Alton Towers at 3pm and bought a day ticket, would
you expect to be able to stay there till 3pm the next day?

Is the parking permit marked 'valid for 24 hours' or 'one day'? ;-)

(I get the issue though).


OK so it says 1 days parking. And a day is 24 hours.

I have emailed the council to ask them and I also asked them if it is
normal for parking attendants[1] to park on double yellow lines and then
start issuing tickets to cars parked on the double yellow lines.


[1] A ****s job that only a **** will do. I did however film the ****s
actions.

Somewhere on the ticket or on the machine it will say that purchasing
the ticket means accepting the terms and conditions laid down by the
council, so I'm sorry but you are stuffed.

Traffic wardens are devious, I staggered out of a pub in the town to
feed the meter a few years back to find that with three minutes to go
the nasty little pratt issuing tickets was writing out one for my car.
I did inform him of my contempt for his actions and watched him delete
the ticket before sticking another one on.

A few pints later I read the "small print" on the machine. It seems I
should have removed the car and not returned for an hour.

I should have made a complaint that the councils warden was dishonest
for writing the ticket before time and incompetent for not issuing me
with a ticket for feeding the meter.

You are lucky, he must have been at the end of his shift and went home
or you would have got one.



Councils use the excuse that they are there to raise money on behalf
of the people that they are supposed to work for. Sadly they dont,
they just behave like a large corrupt private company with little
chance of being held responsible for their actions.


I have seen the accounts for my local council.
They do not make a profit from issuing parking tickets on the roads.

Issuing them for violations in the car parks is another story.

I don't understand why these claims companies dont offer to take on
council negligence. The drawn out fight to try to get the slightest
wrong put right by my UK council is a time consuming nightmare. More
than once I have considered court action, although eventually the
stupid ******* do back down.

AB

On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 13:19:39 +0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 10/03/2019 12:07, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp Esq wrote:
On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 04:04:24 +0000, ARW
wrote:

On 09/03/2019 20:06, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 9 Mar 2019 19:36:46 +0000, ARW
wrote:

Stick a days visitors parking voucher in the windscreen at 1pm and it
must be valid until 1pm the next day.

A day is 24 hours.

Ah, but is it still say, the 8th day of the month or did you go into
the 'next day'?

If you turned up at Alton Towers at 3pm and bought a day ticket, would
you expect to be able to stay there till 3pm the next day?

Is the parking permit marked 'valid for 24 hours' or 'one day'? ;-)

(I get the issue though).


OK so it says 1 days parking. And a day is 24 hours.

I have emailed the council to ask them and I also asked them if it is
normal for parking attendants[1] to park on double yellow lines and then
start issuing tickets to cars parked on the double yellow lines.


[1] A ****s job that only a **** will do. I did however film the ****s
actions.

Somewhere on the ticket or on the machine it will say that purchasing
the ticket means accepting the terms and conditions laid down by the
council, so I'm sorry but you are stuffed.

Traffic wardens are devious, I staggered out of a pub in the town to
feed the meter a few years back to find that with three minutes to go
the nasty little pratt issuing tickets was writing out one for my car.
I did inform him of my contempt for his actions and watched him delete
the ticket before sticking another one on.

A few pints later I read the "small print" on the machine. It seems I
should have removed the car and not returned for an hour.

I should have made a complaint that the councils warden was dishonest
for writing the ticket before time and incompetent for not issuing me
with a ticket for feeding the meter.

You are lucky, he must have been at the end of his shift and went home
or you would have got one.



Councils use the excuse that they are there to raise money on behalf
of the people that they are supposed to work for. Sadly they dont,
they just behave like a large corrupt private company with little
chance of being held responsible for their actions.


I have seen the accounts for my local council.
They do not make a profit from issuing parking tickets on the roads.

I believe they are not supposed to, they merely apply penalties to
keep traffic flowing.

To be honest, if it wasn't for the traffic wardens and fines, the
roads would be impassable.

I was in Crewe a couple of months back and some moronic woman thought
it acceptable to block an entire car park section off for half an hour
because she saw a bumper bend occur. The blasted dope was on her phone
for the whole half hour, no doubt telling all her friends she was
witnessing the accident of the century and was no longer the boring
idiot they all knew.

I did point out her error of judgement but she was obviously a Brexit
voter and totally incapable of seeing sense.


AB



Issuing them for violations in the car parks is another story.

I don't understand why these claims companies dont offer to take on
council negligence. The drawn out fight to try to get the slightest
wrong put right by my UK council is a time consuming nightmare. More
than once I have considered court action, although eventually the
stupid ******* do back down.

AB

On 10/03/2019 13:34, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp Esq wrote:

snip


I was in Crewe a couple of months back and some moronic woman thought
it acceptable to block an entire car park section off for half an hour
because she saw a bumper bend occur. The blasted dope was on her phone
for the whole half hour, no doubt telling all her friends she was
witnessing the accident of the century and was no longer the boring
idiot they all knew.

I did point out her error of judgement but she was obviously a Brexit
voter and totally incapable of seeing sense.

More likely the opposite, her actions were in disregard to everyone else
around her.

On 09/03/2019 19:36, ARW wrote:
Stick a days visitors parking voucher in the windscreen at 1pm and it
must be valid until 1pm the next day.

A day is 24 hours.

I was going to say "look at the small print" but even so, if it wasn't
specified at the point of sale, nor were you drawn attention to them,
then face value maybe what matters.

Is this a private car park, or a London authority car park? One will
have to prove their case, the other simply say a byelaw is in place
where ignorance of the law is no defence.

On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 14:04:19 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

On 10/03/2019 13:34, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp Esq wrote:

snip


I was in Crewe a couple of months back and some moronic woman thought
it acceptable to block an entire car park section off for half an hour
because she saw a bumper bend occur. The blasted dope was on her phone
for the whole half hour, no doubt telling all her friends she was
witnessing the accident of the century and was no longer the boring
idiot they all knew.

I did point out her error of judgement but she was obviously a Brexit
voter and totally incapable of seeing sense.

More likely the opposite, her actions were in disregard to everyone else
around her.

No! Definitely a Brexit voter, doing an amble around a bent bumper on
a mobile phone oblivious to the danger of vehicles she did leave
capable of movement.

A blinkered, self interested dimwit, oblivious to reality and the harm
she was doing.


AB

On 10/03/2019 14:32, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp Esq wrote:

snip

A blinkered, self interested dimwit, oblivious to reality and the harm
she was doing.

The very definition of a Remoaner, someone who thinks they know best
against the tide of the populous. Someone who's never heard of democracy.

In article ,
ARW wrote:
Stick a days visitors parking voucher in the windscreen at 1pm and it
must be valid until 1pm the next day.

A day is 24 hours.


Good try. Which day did you put it on the screen? ;-)

--
*Arkansas State Motto: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Laugh.

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

On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 14:41:29 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

On 10/03/2019 14:32, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp Esq wrote:

snip

A blinkered, self interested dimwit, oblivious to reality and the harm
she was doing.

The very definition of a Remoaner, someone who thinks they know best
against the tide of the populous. Someone who's never heard of democracy.

There is no definition of Remoaner. I believe it has been put up as a
"new word", but I wouldn't dash out to buy a copy of the Oxford just
yet.


I would imagine "remoaner" is one of those stupid little soundbites
used so frequently by the gutter press to avoid any dissection of the
issues involved. Brexit was totally dependent on such garbage, when
you are aiming at a group with the attention span of a golfish with
alzheimers, it pays to coin up a few derogatory sounding words or
phrases.

Anything really to stop the idiots trying to analise the facts, god
forbid they might run out and buy an Independent or other newspaper.

AB

On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 04:04:24 +0000, ARW
wrote:

On 09/03/2019 20:06, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 9 Mar 2019 19:36:46 +0000, ARW
wrote:

Stick a days visitors parking voucher in the windscreen at 1pm and it
must be valid until 1pm the next day.

A day is 24 hours.

Ah, but is it still say, the 8th day of the month or did you go into
the 'next day'?

If you turned up at Alton Towers at 3pm and bought a day ticket, would
you expect to be able to stay there till 3pm the next day?

Is the parking permit marked 'valid for 24 hours' or 'one day'? ;-)

(I get the issue though).


OK so it says 1 days parking. And a day is 24 hours.

I have emailed the council to ask them and I also asked them if it is
normal for parking attendants[1] to park on double yellow lines and then
start issuing tickets to cars parked on the double yellow lines.


[1] A ****s job that only a **** will do. I did however film the ****s
actions.

I carry a nice chunky camera in the car. It caused a bit of
consternation when I took a few shots of a coucil "hit squad" in
action in my local [UK] town. Not that I had any real interest in the
piccies, I only wanted to see the reaction :-)

I am a firm believer in being totally transparent in what I do
professionally, and it is always fascinating to see the council
employees squirm when asked for any information at all.

A sure sign of guilt, it's just that it takes a copy of Private Eye to
find out what drives the guilt.


AB

Fredxx wrote:
On 10/03/2019 14:32, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp Esq wrote:

snip

A blinkered, self interested dimwit, oblivious to reality and the harm
she was doing.

The very definition of a Remoaner, someone who thinks they know best
against the tide of the populous. Someone who's never heard of democracy.

The populous what (look it up, I guess you possibly/probably meant
populace).

--
Chris Green
·

On 10/03/2019 17:39, Chris Green wrote:
Fredxx wrote:
On 10/03/2019 14:32, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp Esq wrote:

snip

A blinkered, self interested dimwit, oblivious to reality and the harm
she was doing.

The very definition of a Remoaner, someone who thinks they know best
against the tide of the populous. Someone who's never heard of democracy.

The populous what (look it up, I guess you possibly/probably meant
populace).

Apologies, yes you are indeed correct.

On 10/03/2019 09:41, Robin wrote:

And it's no comfort to you that it's not just parking vouchers that can
cause confusion.Â* Transport for London sell One Day Travelcards. They're
valid until 04:29 the next morning.Â* Not good value for people who buy
one in the evening and use it for just one journey.

I had to check to see if One Day Travelcards still existed. They do, but
for me they cost 30% more than the daily cap on using Contactless payment.

So why would anyone use a one day travel card?

On 09/03/2019 19:36, ARW wrote:
Stick a days visitors parking voucher in the windscreen at 1pm and it
must be valid until 1pm the next day.

A day is 24 hours.

And starts at midnight, you just didn't use the bit of the day before
you got to the car park.

On 10/03/2019 18:08, Paul Welsh wrote:
On 10/03/2019 09:41, Robin wrote:

And it's no comfort to you that it's not just parking vouchers that
can cause confusion.Â* Transport for London sell One Day Travelcards.
They're valid until 04:29 the next morning.Â* Not good value for people
who buy one in the evening and use it for just one journey.

I had to check to see if One Day Travelcards still existed. They do, but
for me they cost 30% more than the daily cap on using Contactless payment.

So why would anyone use a one day travel card?

One reason is that they don't have a contactless payment card, and
haven't got around to getting (or don't want to get) an Oyster card.
Bear in mind contactless cards were, until very recently, rare in the USA.

Another is that people who are travelling on business and want to claim
expenses may find it easier to claim for a single item evidenced by a
physical Travelcard.

A variation on the benefits for business travellers is that people
booking business travel with a corporate account may well be able to buy
a Travelcard at the same time, all billed direct to the employer, so
they don't need to claim anything at all.

There are ways around all that with business accounts with TfL but
change costs and for infrequent users...

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

On Sunday, 10 March 2019 18:08:21 UTC, Paul Welsh wrote:
I had to check to see if One Day Travelcards still existed. They do, but
for me they cost 30% more than the daily cap on using Contactless payment.
So why would anyone use a one day travel card?

Not everyone has a contactless payment card. Apart from uk.railway's proverbial goat-herding passenger, lots of Americans are still just catching up to chip+sign technology.

Owain

On 10/03/2019 18:08, Paul Welsh wrote:
On 10/03/2019 09:41, Robin wrote:

And it's no comfort to you that it's not just parking vouchers that
can cause confusion.Â* Transport for London sell One Day Travelcards.
They're valid until 04:29 the next morning.Â* Not good value for people
who buy one in the evening and use it for just one journey.

I had to check to see if One Day Travelcards still existed. They do, but
for me they cost 30% more than the daily cap on using Contactless payment.

So why would anyone use a one day travel card?

Well you might be travelling from outside London.

--
Max Demian

ARW wrote

Stick a days visitors parking voucher in the windscreen
at 1pm and it must be valid until 1pm the next day.

A day is 24 hours.

Not with parking and most trips.

But it is with our day go anywhere fares for seniors.

On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 14:41:29 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

On 10/03/2019 14:32, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp Esq wrote:

snip

A blinkered, self interested dimwit, oblivious to reality and the harm
she was doing.

The very definition of a Remoaner, someone who thinks they know best
against the tide of the populous.

Oh dear oh dear ...

"someone who thinks they know best" ... I would suggest more people
voted Remain because they *didn't* think they knew best.

"against the tide of the populous" ... the 2/3rds who *didn't* vote
FOR change?

Someone who's never heard of democracy.

Oh the irony. 1/3rd of the electorate voted to leave when they had *NO
IDEA* what they would *ACTUALLY GET* for their vote.

Yes, some *thought* that the NHS would 'get the money instead' or they
hoped that all the foreigners would be sent home or that the hoards of
Turks would be stopped from coming in and doing who knows what but
that's the point, most of what they were threatened would happened
won't and there is a good chance they won't get what they were
promised.

So, democracy would be people being promised something that was
actually likely to happen and them voting for those things, not a load
of other things that in many cases were just spin and catchphrases.

For something as important as a 'once in a generation' non-reversible
vote, it really needed the supermajority that Firrage insisted would
apply for Remain to win.

Cheers, T i m

On 10/03/2019 20:28, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 14:41:29 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

On 10/03/2019 14:32, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp Esq wrote:

snip

A blinkered, self interested dimwit, oblivious to reality and the harm
she was doing.

The very definition of a Remoaner, someone who thinks they know best
against the tide of the populous.

Oh dear oh dear ...

"someone who thinks they know best" ... I would suggest more people
voted Remain because they *didn't* think they knew best.

"against the tide of the populous" ... the 2/3rds who *didn't* vote
FOR change?

No, 2/3 didn't vote to stay in the EU.

Someone who's never heard of democracy.

Oh the irony. 1/3rd of the electorate voted to leave when they had *NO
IDEA* what they would *ACTUALLY GET* for their vote.

The irony is that 2/3rds knew sufficient to not stay in the EU.

The other 1/3 hadn't a clue and simply moan all the way to Brexit.

Yes, some *thought* that the NHS would 'get the money instead' or they
hoped that all the foreigners would be sent home or that the hoards of
Turks would be stopped from coming in and doing who knows what but
that's the point, most of what they were threatened would happened
won't and there is a good chance they won't get what they were
promised.

Yes, some *thought* we would have Armageddon.

And yes, we will get the money back from the EU, plus any money gained
from import tariffs, not just 20%.

So, democracy would be people being promised something that was
actually likely to happen and them voting for those things, not a load
of other things that in many cases were just spin and catchphrases.

Yes, like project fear.

For something as important as a 'once in a generation' non-reversible
vote, it really needed the supermajority that Firrage insisted would
apply for Remain to win.

Which would have made the continuing argument to leave all the more
strong and decimated the current political structure with UKIP becoming
a far bigger player.

You haven't thought this through.

On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 20:36:03 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

snip

"against the tide of the populous" ... the 2/3rds who *didn't* vote
FOR change?

No, 2/3 didn't vote to stay in the EU.

I know they didn't and that's not what I said?

Someone who's never heard of democracy.

Oh the irony. 1/3rd of the electorate voted to leave when they had *NO
IDEA* what they would *ACTUALLY GET* for their vote.

The irony is that 2/3rds knew sufficient to not stay in the EU.

How did you figure that when (only) 1/3rd voted TO stay?

The other 1/3 hadn't a clue and simply moan all the way to Brexit.

That bit is true. ;-)

Yes, some *thought* that the NHS would 'get the money instead' or they
hoped that all the foreigners would be sent home or that the hoards of
Turks would be stopped from coming in and doing who knows what but
that's the point, most of what they were threatened would happened
won't and there is a good chance they won't get what they were
promised.

Yes, some *thought* we would have Armageddon.

Not most of the Remainers though. You don't typically have Armageddon
if you don't change the status quo.

And yes, we will get the money back from the EU, plus any money gained
from import tariffs, not just 20%.

Ok?

So, democracy would be people being promised something that was
actually likely to happen and them voting for those things, not a load
of other things that in many cases were just spin and catchphrases.

Yes, like project fear.

No such thing mate. You are getting confused between spin and realism.

For something as important as a 'once in a generation' non-reversible
vote, it really needed the supermajority that Firrage insisted would
apply for Remain to win.

Which would have made the continuing argument to leave all the more
strong and decimated the current political structure with UKIP becoming
a far bigger player.

Whatever?

You haven't thought this through.

Ironically (again), I have thought 'this though' more than most who
voted for something that they had little control of and *no*
understanding of the final outcome and it's cost to everyone.

I knew what we had and I knew that the chances are our cow was worth
more than the magic beans.

Every day this white elephant limps on, costing us millions and
distracting the system from important matters, proves just how 'IT'
wasn't thought though AT ALL.

Cheers, T i m

T i m wrote:
"against the tide of the populous" ... the 2/3rds who *didn't* vote
FOR change?



populace

--
Chris Green
·

On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 06:33:31 +1100, cantankerous trolling senile geezer Rot
Speed blabbered, again:


Not with parking and most trips.

But it is with our day go anywhere fares for seniors.

This is a UK group, senile Ozzie cretin. WHEN will it get into your senile
head finally?

--
Norman Wells addressing senile Rot:
"Ah, the voice of scum speaks."
MID:

On 10/03/2019 21:55, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 20:36:03 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

snip

"against the tide of the populous" ... the 2/3rds who *didn't* vote
FOR change?

No, 2/3 didn't vote to stay in the EU.

I know they didn't and that's not what I said?

Someone who's never heard of democracy.

Oh the irony. 1/3rd of the electorate voted to leave when they had *NO
IDEA* what they would *ACTUALLY GET* for their vote.

The irony is that 2/3rds knew sufficient to not stay in the EU.

How did you figure that when (only) 1/3rd voted TO stay?

Simply because 2/3 of the electorate didn't vote for remain. Do keep up
using you own silly arguments.

The other 1/3 hadn't a clue and simply moan all the way to Brexit.

That bit is true. ;-)

So we have some common ground.

Yes, some *thought* that the NHS would 'get the money instead' or they
hoped that all the foreigners would be sent home or that the hoards of
Turks would be stopped from coming in and doing who knows what but
that's the point, most of what they were threatened would happened
won't and there is a good chance they won't get what they were
promised.

Yes, some *thought* we would have Armageddon.

Not most of the Remainers though.

But some were scared into voting Remain.

You don't typically have Armageddon
if you don't change the status quo.

Sometimes a change is for the best or stagnation at best is bound to occur.

And yes, we will get the money back from the EU, plus any money gained
from import tariffs, not just 20%.

Ok?

So, democracy would be people being promised something that was
actually likely to happen and them voting for those things, not a load
of other things that in many cases were just spin and catchphrases.

Yes, like project fear.

No such thing mate. You are getting confused between spin and realism.

You are in denial. Or have a very poor memory. I'm not your mate.

For something as important as a 'once in a generation' non-reversible
vote, it really needed the supermajority that Firrage insisted would
apply for Remain to win.

Which would have made the continuing argument to leave all the more
strong and decimated the current political structure with UKIP becoming
a far bigger player.

Whatever?

Most teenagers would say that was agreement.

On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 22:19:37 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

On 10/03/2019 21:55, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 20:36:03 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

snip

"against the tide of the populous" ... the 2/3rds who *didn't* vote
FOR change?

No, 2/3 didn't vote to stay in the EU.

I know they didn't and that's not what I said?

Someone who's never heard of democracy.

Oh the irony. 1/3rd of the electorate voted to leave when they had *NO
IDEA* what they would *ACTUALLY GET* for their vote.

The irony is that 2/3rds knew sufficient to not stay in the EU.

How did you figure that when (only) 1/3rd voted TO stay?

Simply because 2/3 of the electorate didn't vote for remain. Do keep up
using you own silly arguments.

It wasn't a silly argument it was a fact? There was a question of who
wants to leave the EU and only 1/3rd of the electorate voted to LEAVE
THE EU. The other 2/3rds DIDN'T 'vote to leave the EU'. How more
straightforward could it be?

The other 1/3 hadn't a clue and simply moan all the way to Brexit.

That bit is true. ;-)

So we have some common ground.

I'm sure we do.

Yes, some *thought* that the NHS would 'get the money instead' or they
hoped that all the foreigners would be sent home or that the hoards of
Turks would be stopped from coming in and doing who knows what but
that's the point, most of what they were threatened would happened
won't and there is a good chance they won't get what they were
promised.

Yes, some *thought* we would have Armageddon.

Not most of the Remainers though.

But some were scared into voting Remain.

Being 'unsure that the promises will be carried out' and that 'I'm not
sure we are doing so badly as we are' are being scared into anything?
Most people would think it sensible, NOT to gamble a fairly safe known
for a complete unknown, especially when 2+ years later we still don't
know what Leaving will actually mean?

You don't typically have Armageddon
if you don't change the status quo.

Sometimes a change is for the best or stagnation at best is bound to occur.

Yes, 'sometimes' it might be but are you suggesting this is actually
the *reason* for all of us to leave and now and that's what most
people who voted Leave actually voted for, a protest against
'stagnation'?

And yes, we will get the money back from the EU, plus any money gained
from import tariffs, not just 20%.

Ok?

So, democracy would be people being promised something that was
actually likely to happen and them voting for those things, not a load
of other things that in many cases were just spin and catchphrases.

Yes, like project fear.

No such thing mate. You are getting confused between spin and realism.

You are in denial.

We well see. How is the Brexit thing going for you?

Or have a very poor memory.

I still have a reasonably good memory as it happens.

I'm not your mate.

I'm sorry, I forgot you are a gullible and literal Left Brainer.

For something as important as a 'once in a generation' non-reversible
vote, it really needed the supermajority that Firrage insisted would
apply for Remain to win.

Which would have made the continuing argument to leave all the more
strong and decimated the current political structure with UKIP becoming
a far bigger player.

Whatever?

Most teenagers would say that was agreement.

Is this the teenagers who could *now* vote on the EU farce? The
teenagers who will have you live with your reckless gambling on some
magic beans, long after you are dead?

Cheers, T i m

On 10/03/2019 22:52, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 22:19:37 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

On 10/03/2019 21:55, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 20:36:03 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

snip

"against the tide of the populous" ... the 2/3rds who *didn't* vote
FOR change?

No, 2/3 didn't vote to stay in the EU.

I know they didn't and that's not what I said?

Someone who's never heard of democracy.

Oh the irony. 1/3rd of the electorate voted to leave when they had *NO
IDEA* what they would *ACTUALLY GET* for their vote.

The irony is that 2/3rds knew sufficient to not stay in the EU.

How did you figure that when (only) 1/3rd voted TO stay?

Simply because 2/3 of the electorate didn't vote for remain. Do keep up
using you own silly arguments.

It wasn't a silly argument it was a fact? There was a question of who
wants to leave the EU and only 1/3rd of the electorate voted to LEAVE
THE EU. The other 2/3rds DIDN'T 'vote to leave the EU'. How more
straightforward could it be?

Using your silly argument, 2/3 didn't vote to remain in the EU.

Using your words again, "How more straightforward could it be"?

If you don't think the argument I have put forward is silly, then fair doos.

The other 1/3 hadn't a clue and simply moan all the way to Brexit.

That bit is true. ;-)

So we have some common ground.

I'm sure we do.

Yes, some *thought* that the NHS would 'get the money instead' or they
hoped that all the foreigners would be sent home or that the hoards of
Turks would be stopped from coming in and doing who knows what but
that's the point, most of what they were threatened would happened
won't and there is a good chance they won't get what they were
promised.

Yes, some *thought* we would have Armageddon.

Not most of the Remainers though.

But some were scared into voting Remain.

Being 'unsure that the promises will be carried out' and that 'I'm not
sure we are doing so badly as we are' are being scared into anything?
Most people would think it sensible, NOT to gamble a fairly safe known
for a complete unknown, especially when 2+ years later we still don't
know what Leaving will actually mean?

A step into the unknown can lead to greater things.

We do know, hard Brexit is on the cards because the EU want to split up
the UK. Imagine how Spain would feel if there was a new border between
Catalonia and the rest of Spain, or a new border separating East and
West Germany. Do get real. No deal where there is a border in the Irish
Sea will ever be acceptable.

You don't typically have Armageddon
if you don't change the status quo.

Sometimes a change is for the best or stagnation at best is bound to occur.

Yes, 'sometimes' it might be but are you suggesting this is actually
the *reason* for all of us to leave and now and that's what most
people who voted Leave actually voted for, a protest against
'stagnation'?

Change must be slow, and politicians shouldn't run counter to the
country's feelings and endorse a number of issues foisted upon us by the EU.

And yes, we will get the money back from the EU, plus any money gained
from import tariffs, not just 20%.

Ok?

So, democracy would be people being promised something that was
actually likely to happen and them voting for those things, not a load
of other things that in many cases were just spin and catchphrases.

Yes, like project fear.

No such thing mate. You are getting confused between spin and realism.

You are in denial.

We well see. How is the Brexit thing going for you?

So far it is going well. Sales are up, salary is up. New bonus.

Or have a very poor memory.

I still have a reasonably good memory as it happens.

I'm not your mate.

I'm sorry, I forgot you are a gullible and literal Left Brainer.

I forgot you were the sort of remainer who abuses others who disagree
with you.

For something as important as a 'once in a generation' non-reversible
vote, it really needed the supermajority that Firrage insisted would
apply for Remain to win.

Which would have made the continuing argument to leave all the more
strong and decimated the current political structure with UKIP becoming
a far bigger player.

Whatever?

Most teenagers would say that was agreement.

Is this the teenagers who could *now* vote on the EU farce? The
teenagers who will have you live with your reckless gambling on some
magic beans, long after you are dead?

The only farce is the insistence of a border within the UK, something
that will never happen.

I presume the same teenager who needs help tying his own shoelaces and
can't buy himself a drink or cigarette.

As you are aware, the older you are the more likely you are to vote
Brexit. Something that comes with maturity which is of course a
continuing process.

On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 23:05:33 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

snip

Being 'unsure that the promises will be carried out' and that 'I'm not
sure we are doing so badly as we are' are being scared into anything?
Most people would think it sensible, NOT to gamble a fairly safe known
for a complete unknown, especially when 2+ years later we still don't
know what Leaving will actually mean?

A step into the unknown can lead to greater things.

Lovely weasel word that, 'can'.

It can also lead (with potentially more likelihood, given the views so
far and in comparison to what we already had) into a ravine?

We do know,

'We'?

hard Brexit is on the cards

Because of the lack of an acceptable deal because there isn't any such
thing. There isn't any such thing because the majority don't want it.
They don't want it because they can't see the point of it and are
aware that it could cost us big time, long time.

because the EU want to split up
the UK.

Cite?

Imagine how Spain would feel if there was a new border between
Catalonia and the rest of Spain, or a new border separating East and
West Germany.

Local issues for local people.

Do get real. No deal where there is a border in the Irish
Sea will ever be acceptable.

Exactly.

You don't typically have Armageddon
if you don't change the status quo.

Sometimes a change is for the best or stagnation at best is bound to occur.

Yes, 'sometimes' it might be but are you suggesting this is actually
the *reason* for all of us to leave and now and that's what most
people who voted Leave actually voted for, a protest against
'stagnation'?

Change must be slow, and politicians shouldn't run counter to the
country's feelings

As a left brainer you (obviously) have NO IDEA about *feelings*. If
you (or your kind) did you would 'get' how a near 50:50 of those who
voted and 2/3rds of the electorate DID NOT vote to leave the EU.

and endorse a number of issues foisted upon us by the EU.

Issues that would be easier to resolve from within and certainly than
all the extra stuff that would be foisted upon us should we leave with
a bad deal over which we would have no say at all.

And yes, we will get the money back from the EU, plus any money gained
from import tariffs, not just 20%.

Ok?

So, democracy would be people being promised something that was
actually likely to happen and them voting for those things, not a load
of other things that in many cases were just spin and catchphrases.

Yes, like project fear.

No such thing mate. You are getting confused between spin and realism.

You are in denial.

We well see. How is the Brexit thing going for you?

So far it is going well. Sales are up, salary is up. New bonus.

Think yourself lucky and it might be best not to count your chickens
.... (and trust a left brainer to take the 'you' literally when it's an
international event).

Or have a very poor memory.

I still have a reasonably good memory as it happens.

I'm not your mate.

I'm sorry, I forgot you are a gullible and literal Left Brainer.

I forgot you were the sort of remainer who abuses others who disagree
with you.

How can an honest observation be considered abuse, 'mate'?

The mindset of those likely to gamble on an unknown where it could
impact everyone and badly *is* going to be different to those not
willing to do the same. You have already chosen your 'side'.

For something as important as a 'once in a generation' non-reversible
vote, it really needed the supermajority that Firrage insisted would
apply for Remain to win.

Which would have made the continuing argument to leave all the more
strong and decimated the current political structure with UKIP becoming
a far bigger player.

Whatever?

Most teenagers would say that was agreement.

Is this the teenagers who could *now* vote on the EU farce? The
teenagers who will have you live with your reckless gambling on some
magic beans, long after you are dead?

The only farce is the insistence of a border within the UK, something
that will never happen.

More nice weasel / distraction words.

I presume the same teenager who needs help tying his own shoelaces and
can't buy himself a drink or cigarette.

See above. Why are you so petrified to let those now more likely to
suffer the outcome of this farce (generated mostly by people who will
soon be dead) for longer (with a timescale in 'generations')? Anyone
would think you had realised you got a bogus, bigoted and fluke result
and a peoples vote (on what we are *actually* likely to get, as
opposed to the lies and BS we were promised) would crush those
minority interest fantasies?

As you are aware, the older you are the more likely you are to vote
Brexit.

Yup (see above).

Something that comes with maturity which is of course a
continuing process.

Bwhaha. Yeah, like general racism and the demeaning of women etc ...
more likely of the older generations than the young.

The real sad thing here is you are one of those (generations), you
don't realise it and so can't hear yourself. ;-(

We are working round the world to remove borders and barriers (apart
from Trump and his crazy projects of course) so why on earth would we
want to put one up between one of our biggest customers, suppliers and
social neighbours?

The answer, from the UK electorate over two years ago (before the lies
and bogus Leave promises were outed) is that 2/3rds didn't want to
leave. That should have been the end of it.

Cheers, T i m

On 10/03/2019 23:05, Fredxx wrote:

A step into the unknown can lead to greater things.

And it can lead to disaster too.

The odds on brexit leading to better things for the majority are pretty low.
There will be plenty of opportunity for the rich to exploit brexit though.


We do know, hard Brexit is on the cards because the EU want to split
up the UK. Imagine how Spain would feel if there was a new border
between Catalonia and the rest of Spain, or a new border separating
East and West Germany. Do get real. No deal where there is a border
in the Irish Sea will ever be acceptable.

The EU doesn't want the UK split up.
They don't want an open border unless the other country applies its
import rules.
Its the brexiteers that want to split the UK because they can't think of
any way to achieve what is wanted by the EU.
Its not surprising that they can't they thought the EU would just cave
in and accept whatever they said.

On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 10:07:38 +0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 10/03/2019 23:05, Fredxx wrote:

A step into the unknown can lead to greater things.

And it can lead to disaster too.

The odds on brexit leading to better things for the majority are pretty low.
There will be plenty of opportunity for the rich to exploit brexit though.


We do know, hard Brexit is on the cards because the EU want to split
up the UK. Imagine how Spain would feel if there was a new border
between Catalonia and the rest of Spain, or a new border separating
East and West Germany. Do get real. No deal where there is a border
in the Irish Sea will ever be acceptable.

The EU doesn't want the UK split up.
They don't want an open border unless the other country applies its
import rules.
Its the brexiteers that want to split the UK because they can't think of
any way to achieve what is wanted by the EU.
Its not surprising that they can't they thought the EU would just cave
in and accept whatever they said.

I wonder what it is about these fanatic Brexiteers that allows them to
get it all so wrong?

They really only care for themselves, their ideals and pockets and
obviously DGAF about anyone else, especially 'most people' in the UK
who didn't specifically *want* us to leave the EU?

Outside of one person (who I just regarded as a fanatic), pre the
whole Brexit clusterfcuk I knew of not one other person who had any
thoughts of us leaving the EU for anything.

Feed the great unwashed (+ racists and Little Englanders etc) the idea
that Leaving the EU will cater to all their issues, then you are bound
to get a few jumping on the bandwagon. Ask most of them just how far
they have considered the potential impact and outcomes and they just
look at you and grunt some spin they read on the side of a bus or from
some bloke at the pub or bookies.

I have been apologising for this minority to the myriad of Europeans
who are still working for us in all walks of life.

Cheers, T i m