https://order-order.com/2019/09/17/e...electoral-law/

Yep, the bent electioneering was done by remain not leave.

You were lied to.


--
€œThe ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to
fill the world with fools.€�

Herbert Spencer

On 11:47 17 Sep 2019, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

https://order-order.com/2019/09/17/e...ainers-broke-e
lectoral-law/

Yep, the bent electioneering was done by remain not leave.

You were lied to.

Wasn't the Electoral Commission initially reluctant to investigate the Leave
campaign, even though the allegations were far more serious than the ones in
your link?

On 17/09/2019 11:47, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
https://order-order.com/2019/09/17/e...electoral-law/


Yep, the bent electioneering was done by remain not leave.

It is not a binary choice. Vote Leave were fine £61,000 for their breach
of the rules. According to your link, DDB have been fined a total of
£2,800. It still looks as though the leave campaigners were much more
culpable.

You were lied to.

Mostly by the Leave campaign.


--
Colin Bignell

On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 12:04:38 +0100, Pamela wrote:

On 11:47 17 Sep 2019, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

https://order-order.com/2019/09/17/e...ion-remainers-
broke-e
lectoral-law/

Yep, the bent electioneering was done by remain not leave.

You were lied to.

Wasn't the Electoral Commission initially reluctant to investigate the
Leave campaign, even though the allegations were far more serious than
the ones in your link?

Not to mention the Met's lack of interest.

Oh, look, Cressida Dick is now a Dame. Strange, that.



--
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

On 17/09/2019 12:30, nightjar wrote:
On 17/09/2019 11:47, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
https://order-order.com/2019/09/17/e...electoral-law/


Yep, the bent electioneering was done by remain not leave.

It is not a binary choice. Vote Leave were fine £61,000 for their breach
of the rules.

They didn't breach the rules, and they were exonerated

According to your link, DDB have been fined a total of
£2,800. It still looks as though the leave campaigners were much more
culpable.

It looks liek te electoiral comissionon picked on soemone top show they
were 'impartial' and didnt exact any penalties

You were lied to.

Mostly by the Leave campaign.

No,




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

On 17/09/2019 14:01, Bob Eager wrote:
On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 12:04:38 +0100, Pamela wrote:

On 11:47 17 Sep 2019, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

https://order-order.com/2019/09/17/e...ion-remainers-
broke-e
lectoral-law/

Yep, the bent electioneering was done by remain not leave.

You were lied to.

Wasn't the Electoral Commission initially reluctant to investigate the
Leave campaign, even though the allegations were far more serious than
the ones in your link?

No, and they wer less serious


Not to mention the Met's lack of interest.

No cr9ime had been comitted

Oh, look, Cressida Dick is now a Dame. Strange, that.

By a remain PM. Yup.





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

In article , Pamela
writes
On 11:47 17 Sep 2019, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

https://order-order.com/2019/09/17/e...ainers-broke-e
lectoral-law/

Yep, the bent electioneering was done by remain not leave.

You were lied to.

Wasn't the Electoral Commission initially reluctant to investigate the Leave
campaign, even though the allegations were far more serious than the ones in
your link?
Nope they jumped all over Leave. It was Remain they would not
investigate even though they were provided with a dossier of evidence.
Courts decided Leave offences were minor technical accounting errors and
had no impact on the outcome of the referendum
--
bert

On 14:01 17 Sep 2019, Bob Eager wrote:

On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 12:04:38 +0100, Pamela wrote:

On 11:47 17 Sep 2019, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

https://order-order.com/2019/09/17/e...ion-remainers-
broke-electoral-law/

Yep, the bent electioneering was done by remain not leave.

You were lied to.

Wasn't the Electoral Commission initially reluctant to investigate the
Leave campaign, even though the allegations were far more serious than
the ones in your link?

Not to mention the Met's lack of interest.

Oh, look, Cressida Dick is now a Dame. Strange, that.

The scandal of massive footdragging and nearly letting off the Leave
campaign for their crimes by the Electoral Commission only got moving after a
lot of adverse media comment.

Both sides behaved despicable in the run up to the referendum, I know that
many EU citizens were extremely critical of the over simplistic ways the two
sides campaigned, in my view making fun of the electorate and not treating
us to the truth. There are many pros and cons and they made it seem like
some kind of no brain thing one way or the other, no wonder everybody was
perplexed.
Brian


--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
https://order-order.com/2019/09/17/e...electoral-law/

Yep, the bent electioneering was done by remain not leave.

You were lied to.


--
"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill
the world with fools."

Herbert Spencer

Beautifully put. Thanks Brian!

Andy

On 17/09/2019 18:44, Brian Gaff wrote:
Both sides behaved despicable in the run up to the referendum, I know that
many EU citizens were extremely critical of the over simplistic ways the two
sides campaigned, in my view making fun of the electorate and not treating
us to the truth. There are many pros and cons and they made it seem like
some kind of no brain thing one way or the other, no wonder everybody was
perplexed.

--
Brian needs top posting.

Vir Campestris wrote:

Beautifully put. Thanks Brian!


What was totally lacking on the remain side was the courage (or even the
inclination?) to put forward the positive benefits, moral and political
as well as economic, of being part of the EU. Did they think the
population was so ground down by years of tabloid anti-EU propaganda
that none of us would believe them?



On 17/09/2019 18:44, Brian Gaff wrote:
Both sides behaved despicable in the run up to the referendum, I know that
many EU citizens were extremely critical of the over simplistic ways the two
sides campaigned, in my view making fun of the electorate and not treating
us to the truth. There are many pros and cons and they made it seem like
some kind of no brain thing one way or the other, no wonder everybody was
perplexed.


--

Roger Hayter

On 17/09/2019 23:50, Roger Hayter wrote:
Vir Campestris wrote:

Beautifully put. Thanks Brian!


What was totally lacking on the remain side was the courage (or even the
inclination?) to put forward the positive benefits, moral and political
as well as economic, of being part of the EU. Did they think the
population was so ground down by years of tabloid anti-EU propaganda
that none of us would believe them?


They did put forwards the benefits, leave called it project fear and
made it all negative just like they are doing now with anything they
don't like.

Its easy to convince their supporters that its just project fear as they
don't think.

On 17/09/2019 23:50, Roger Hayter wrote:
Vir Campestris wrote:

Beautifully put. Thanks Brian!


What was totally lacking on the remain side was the courage (or even the
inclination?) to put forward the positive benefits, moral and political
as well as economic, of being part of the EU. Did they think the
population was so ground down by years of tabloid anti-EU propaganda
that none of us would believe them?


Don't forget the decades of the UK public not bothering to vote in a EU
election because they had already realised that an MEP had absolutely no
power and it didn't matter a toss who got in.

The writing was already on the wall for all to see except for the 544
MPs who thought having a referendum was a good idea. Perhaps those MPs
(of all political parties) who are now claiming the moral high ground
and want us to remain had the courage of their convictions in 2015 then
we wouldn't be in the political stalemate situation of today.

There also seems to be a naive belief on both sides that the rest of the
EU is not going to now take advantage of the chaos in the UK parliament.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 18/09/2019 08:50, alan_m wrote:
On 17/09/2019 23:50, Roger Hayter wrote:
Vir Campestris wrote:

Beautifully put. Thanks Brian!


What was totally lacking on the remain side was the courage (or even the
inclination?) to put forward the positive benefits, moral and political
as well as economic, of being part of the EU.Â*Â* Did they think the
population was so ground down by years of tabloid anti-EU propaganda
that none of us would believe them?


Don't forget the decades of the UK public not bothering to vote in a EU
election because they had already realised that an MEP had absolutely no
power and it didn't matter a toss who got in.

The writing was already on the wall for all to see except for the 544
MPs who thought having a referendum was a good idea. Perhaps those MPs
(of all political parties) who are now claiming the moral high ground
and want us to remain had the courage of their convictions in 2015 then
we wouldn't be in the political stalemate situation of today.

There also seems to be a naive belief on both sides that the rest of the
EU is not going to now take advantage of the chaos in the UK parliament.

....and hasnt been instrumental in causing it.


--
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all
private property.

Karl Marx

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...
On 17/09/2019 23:50, Roger Hayter wrote:
Vir Campestris wrote:

Beautifully put. Thanks Brian!


What was totally lacking on the remain side was the courage (or even the
inclination?) to put forward the positive benefits, moral and political
as well as economic, of being part of the EU. Did they think the
population was so ground down by years of tabloid anti-EU propaganda
that none of us would believe them?


They did put forwards the benefits, leave called it project fear and made
it all negative just like they are doing now with anything they don't
like.

Its easy to convince their supporters that its just project fear as they
don't think.

Only 6 more weeks to see that the project fear lies were always just more
lie.

On 17/09/2019 14:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/09/2019 12:30, nightjar wrote:
On 17/09/2019 11:47, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
https://order-order.com/2019/09/17/e...electoral-law/


Yep, the bent electioneering was done by remain not leave.

It is not a binary choice. Vote Leave were fine £61,000 for their
breach of the rules.

They didn't breach the rules,

The High Court said they did.

and they were exonerated

The maximum fine for any one offence is £20,000. A total of £61,000
means that they were fined for at least four offences. The High Court
only considered one of those offences, in relation to money given to
BeLeave,. It found they had acted illegally, but with the mitigating
circumstances that they had received misleading advice from the
Electoral Commission. That is not being exonerated.

Then, of course, we also have Leave EU, which was fined £70,000 for four
separate offences.

According to your link, DDB have been fined a total of £2,800. It
still looks as though the leave campaigners were much more culpable.

It looks liek te electoiral comissionon picked on soemone top show they
were 'impartial' and didnt exact any penalties

They actually fined more remain organisations than leave organisations.
However, the former were mostly for minor accounting or reporting
errors, which was reflected in the much lower fines.

You were lied to.

Mostly by the Leave campaign.

No,

Very little of the Leave campaign was not based on lies or misdirection.


--
Colin Bignell

On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 18:47:28 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


They did put forwards the benefits, leave called it project fear and made
it all negative just like they are doing now with anything they don't
like.

Its easy to convince their supporters that its just project fear as they
don't think.

Only 6 more weeks to see that the project fear lies were always just more
lie.

Even in 6 more weeks we will most likely see you still trolling here like
there was no tomorrow, you abnormal 85-year-old trolling senile pest. Though
the likelihood that you will finally croak will increase with each passing
day.

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

nightjar wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote
nightjar wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote

You were lied to.

Mostly by the Leave campaign.

No,

Very little of the Leave campaign was not based on lies or misdirection.

Thats flagrantly dishonest, again.

On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 19:57:23 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Very little of the Leave campaign was not based on lies or misdirection.

That¢s flagrantly dishonest, again.

Not at all, senile asshole troll from Oz!

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID:

In article ,
alan_m wrote:
Don't forget the decades of the UK public not bothering to vote in a EU
election because they had already realised that an MEP had absolutely no
power and it didn't matter a toss who got in.

Oddly, the same is being said about our parliament too. Proved by the low
turnout in so many by elections . If a turnout is how you gauge such
things.

--
*According to my calculations, the problem doesn't exist.

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

On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 11:14:11 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
alan_m wrote:
Don't forget the decades of the UK public not bothering to vote in a EU
election because they had already realised that an MEP had absolutely no
power and it didn't matter a toss who got in.

Oddly, the same is being said about our parliament too. Proved by the low
turnout in so many by elections . If a turnout is how you gauge such
things.

We were polled recently re making quite a large area of the locality
permit parking.

Because the issue of commuters using the area as a park-and-ride, the
main issue is only seen by those very near the station and who are
there during the day. They go out in their car and can't park near
their house upon return.

Those leaving their cars at home and using the train to get to work,
or driving and only returning after the rush hour aren't so affected.

So, AFAIK, nothing has been done about the parking scheme because in
reality, it would make the lives of many many people more complicated
and expensive and so few returned the poll.

It had to cover a fairly large radius from the station or it would
only push the problem outwards, potentially affecting more people and
especially those who chose *not* to live that close to the station for
those very reasons.

So, like Brexit, very few people actually wanted it and a few more
could be persuaded / suckered into going along with it because they
are on the margins or know someone who is affected by it and who might
not have a car themselves (or have off-road-parking sufficient for
them and their visitors / family etc).

What would be *better* of course is to provide adequate parking
capacity near the railway or reduce the rates if the existing parking
isn't fully utilised. What they shouldn't do is push the problem onto
people who may not be using the station in the first place but making
it easier for people to park and ride, if that is better for the
environment.

Cheers, T i m

In article ,
T i m wrote:
We were polled recently re making quite a large area of the locality
permit parking.

Because the issue of commuters using the area as a park-and-ride, the
main issue is only seen by those very near the station and who are
there during the day. They go out in their car and can't park near
their house upon return.

Those leaving their cars at home and using the train to get to work,
or driving and only returning after the rush hour aren't so affected.

So, AFAIK, nothing has been done about the parking scheme because in
reality, it would make the lives of many many people more complicated
and expensive and so few returned the poll.

It had to cover a fairly large radius from the station or it would
only push the problem outwards, potentially affecting more people and
especially those who chose *not* to live that close to the station for
those very reasons.

So, like Brexit, very few people actually wanted it and a few more
could be persuaded / suckered into going along with it because they
are on the margins or know someone who is affected by it and who might
not have a car themselves (or have off-road-parking sufficient for
them and their visitors / family etc).

You have to look at it from the council's side. It will be presented as a
means to ease parking in the area. But in reality, a way of generating new
income. So the area they poll will include that close to the station where
locals would be relatively happy to pay to ensure parking, out as far as
where they have no need to - but get the balance right in the council's
favour. Easily seen round here where the zones show just that. And once
you have to pay, a new zone will be created further out, as those in the
edge of the old zone will simply park outside of it for free.

It would likely be very difficult to provide adequate parking at a station
at low cost or free. Because more commuters would choose to use that
station.

My brother tells the story of their local hospital. Parking is fairly
adequate (unlike many hospitals) but cost quite a bit. It is now free, and
you have little chance of finding a space. You'd certainly not rely on
finding one if driving yourself to an appointment.

--
*Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups

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

On 18/09/2019 10:57, Rod Speed wrote:
nightjar wrote
....
Very little of the Leave campaign was not based on lies or misdirection.

Thats flagrantly dishonest, again.

Lying they way they did is, but that is how they won the referendum.

Just one of the hits you will get if you Google Leave campaign lies:

https://www.richardcorbett.org.uk/long-list-leave-lies/



--
Colin Bignell

On Wednesday, 18 September 2019 12:47:50 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 11:14:11 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
alan_m wrote:
Don't forget the decades of the UK public not bothering to vote in a EU
election because they had already realised that an MEP had absolutely no
power and it didn't matter a toss who got in.

Oddly, the same is being said about our parliament too. Proved by the low
turnout in so many by elections . If a turnout is how you gauge such
things.

We were polled recently re making quite a large area of the locality
permit parking.

Was this a binary question because my borough asked this too.
I decided not to 'vote' on any of the options as I don't have a car so it made little differnce to my life.


Because the issue of commuters using the area as a park-and-ride, the
main issue is only seen by those very near the station and who are
there during the day. They go out in their car and can't park near
their house upon return.




Those leaving their cars at home and using the train to get to work,
or driving and only returning after the rush hour aren't so affected.

I do wonder why some have cars if they don;t drive to work and the car spends most of the time outside their own home.

So, AFAIK, nothing has been done about the parking scheme because in
reality, it would make the lives of many many people more complicated
and expensive and so few returned the poll.

So what does that actually mean, do locals want restrictions in place so they can park their own cars outside, or is it they like the idea of not parking outsdie their own homes ?



So, like Brexit, very few people actually wanted it and a few more
could be persuaded / suckered into going along with it because they
are on the margins or know someone who is affected by it and who might
not have a car themselves (or have off-road-parking sufficient for
them and their visitors / family etc).

So how does that prove who is right and who is wrong.
Are yuo saying residents shouldn't expect to be able to park outside their own homes of should communtors get priority during working hours.


What would be *better* of course is to provide adequate parking
capacity near the railway

I guess you could builld more land.

or reduce the rates if the existing parking
isn't fully utilised.

and make less money doesn;t seem very practicle.

What they shouldn't do is push the problem onto
people who may not be using the station in the first place but making
it easier for people to park and ride,

Great idea but how.

if that is better for the
environment.

It would be better for the enviroment if the majoroty of petrol/diesel cars were banned from cities.
you either get an electric car or learn how to walk or bike it.


Cheers, T i m

On 18/09/2019 15:42, whisky-dave wrote:

So what does that actually mean, do locals want restrictions in place
so they can park their own cars outside, or is it they like the idea
of not parking outsdie their own homes ?

Locals have no more right to park outside their house than anyone else!

On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 17:28:38 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

On 18/09/2019 15:42, whisky-dave wrote:

So what does that actually mean, do locals want restrictions in place
so they can park their own cars outside, or is it they like the idea of
not parking outsdie their own homes ?

Locals have no more right to park outside their house than anyone else!

Point taken. But we live 200 metres from a station, with only on-street
parking. It's a pain. I don't mind parking 'only somewhere near' (and in
fact that's the norm as there aren't enough spaces anyway) but I would
like to park within a few hundred metres of where I live.

Less of an issue for me now; I simply avoid going out (mostly) until the
commuters have arrived, and/or stick the car nearby after they've gone
home. The station halved the size of the car park, too, which doesn't
help.



--
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

"nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 18/09/2019 10:57, Rod Speed wrote:
nightjar wrote
...
Very little of the Leave campaign was not based on lies or misdirection.

Thats flagrantly dishonest, again.

Lying they way they did is, but that is how they won the referendum.

Corse there were never any project fear lies, eh ?

Just one of the hits you will get if you Google Leave campaign lies:

https://www.richardcorbett.org.uk/long-list-leave-lies/

Corse there arent any lists of project fear lies, eh ?

And its only 6 more weeks till we see most of the project fear lies
like all the planes will stop flying etc lies exposed for all to laugh at.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 18 September 2019 12:47:50 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 11:14:11 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
alan_m wrote:
Don't forget the decades of the UK public not bothering to vote in a
EU
election because they had already realised that an MEP had absolutely
no
power and it didn't matter a toss who got in.

Oddly, the same is being said about our parliament too. Proved by the
low
turnout in so many by elections . If a turnout is how you gauge such
things.

We were polled recently re making quite a large area of the locality
permit parking.

Was this a binary question because my borough asked
this too. I decided not to 'vote' on any of the options as
I don't have a car so it made little differnce to my life.


Because the issue of commuters using the area as a park-and-ride, the
main issue is only seen by those very near the station and who are
there during the day. They go out in their car and can't park near
their house upon return.




Those leaving their cars at home and using the train to get to work,
or driving and only returning after the rush hour aren't so affected.

I do wonder why some have cars if they don;t drive to work
and the car spends most of the time outside their own home.

Because if you live in the congestion zone and work there too,
it makes more sense to only use the car for the shopping etc
instead of trying to lug the grocerys around on public transport.

So, AFAIK, nothing has been done about the parking scheme
because in reality, it would make the lives of many many people
more complicated and expensive and so few returned the poll.

So what does that actually mean, do locals want restrictions
in place so they can park their own cars outside, or is it they
like the idea of not parking outsdie their own homes ?

So, like Brexit, very few people actually wanted it and a few more
could be persuaded / suckered into going along with it because they
are on the margins or know someone who is affected by it and who might
not have a car themselves (or have off-road-parking sufficient for
them and their visitors / family etc).

So how does that prove who is right and who is wrong.
Are yuo saying residents shouldn't expect to be able to park outside their
own homes of should communtors get priority during working hours.


What would be *better* of course is to provide adequate parking
capacity near the railway

I guess you could builld more land.

or reduce the rates if the existing parking
isn't fully utilised.

and make less money doesn;t seem very practicle.

What they shouldn't do is push the problem onto
people who may not be using the station in the first place but making
it easier for people to park and ride,

Great idea but how.

if that is better for the
environment.

It would be better for the enviroment if the majoroty of petrol/diesel
cars were banned from cities.
you either get an electric car or learn how to walk or bike it.


Cheers, T i m

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
alan_m wrote:
Don't forget the decades of the UK public not bothering to vote in a EU
election because they had already realised that an MEP had absolutely no
power and it didn't matter a toss who got in.

Oddly, the same is being said about our parliament too. Proved by the low
turnout in so many by elections . If a turnout is how you gauge such
things.

By noticing that when the voters are ****ed off enough about
what the current set of clowns have done, the turnout increases
ant the current set of clowns get the bums rush at the ballot box
in much higher numbers than usual. No point in doing that with
the EP because the current set of clowns done even get to write
the legislation or amend current legislation, they just get to
rubber stamp what unelected bureaucrats present to the EP.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...

I do wonder why some have cars if they don;t drive to work and the
car spends most of the time outside their own home.

Probably because there's either no parking at work,
or too much traffic whereas there's less traffic and plenty of parking
at the supermarkets and other places they go to at the weekend.


michael adams

....

In article ,
michael adams wrote:

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...

I do wonder why some have cars if they don;t drive to work and the
car spends most of the time outside their own home.

Probably because there's either no parking at work,
or too much traffic whereas there's less traffic and plenty of parking
at the supermarkets and other places they go to at the weekend.

and it's a company car

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
alan_m wrote:
Don't forget the decades of the UK public not bothering to vote in a EU
election because they had already realised that an MEP had absolutely no
power and it didn't matter a toss who got in.

Oddly, the same is being said about our parliament too. Proved by the low
turnout in so many by elections . If a turnout is how you gauge such
things.

It's why compulsory voting is a bad thing: the turnout figure is
feedback to the politicians.

By noticing that when the voters are ****ed off enough about
what the current set of clowns have done, the turnout increases
ant the current set of clowns get the bums rush at the ballot box
in much higher numbers than usual. No point in doing that with
the EP because the current set of clowns done even get to write
the legislation or amend current legislation, they just get to
rubber stamp what unelected bureaucrats present to the EP.

Even worse - a lot of them can't be gotten rid of in any practical
sense.

Nice one Rodney !

You've even got dozy Tim Streater agreeing with you now !


michael adams

....

On 2019-09-18 12:47 p.m., charles wrote:
In article ,
michael adams wrote:

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...

I do wonder why some have cars if they don;t drive to work and the
car spends most of the time outside their own home.

Probably because there's either no parking at work,
or too much traffic whereas there's less traffic and plenty of parking
at the supermarkets and other places they go to at the weekend.

and it's a company car

why does a company have cars they can't park

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 04:43:42 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile Ozzietard's latest troll****

....and much better air in here again!

--
addressing nym-shifting senile Rodent:
"You on the other hand are a heavyweight bull****ter who demonstrates
your particular prowess at it every day."
MID:

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 04:48:56 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Because if you live in the congestion zone and work there too,
it makes more sense to only use the car for the shopping etc
instead of trying to lug the grocerys around on public transport.

More senile bull****!

--
addressing nym-shifting senile Rodent:
"You on the other hand are a heavyweight bull****ter who demonstrates
your particular prowess at it every day."
MID:

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 05:19:18 +1000, jeikppkywk, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:


By noticing that when the voters are ****ed off enough about
what the current set of clowns have done,

....says the biggest clown of these groups of course, 85-year-old trolling
senile geezer Rodent Speed! LMAO

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

"michael adams" mjadams25@ukonline wrote in message
o.uk...

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
alan_m wrote:
Don't forget the decades of the UK public not bothering to vote in a
EU
election because they had already realised that an MEP had absolutely
no
power and it didn't matter a toss who got in.

Oddly, the same is being said about our parliament too. Proved by the
low
turnout in so many by elections . If a turnout is how you gauge such
things.

It's why compulsory voting is a bad thing: the turnout figure is
feedback to the politicians.

By noticing that when the voters are ****ed off enough about
what the current set of clowns have done, the turnout increases
ant the current set of clowns get the bums rush at the ballot box
in much higher numbers than usual. No point in doing that with
the EP because the current set of clowns done even get to write
the legislation or amend current legislation, they just get to
rubber stamp what unelected bureaucrats present to the EP.

Even worse - a lot of them can't be gotten rid of in any practical
sense.

Nice one Rodney !

You've even got dozy Tim Streater agreeing with you now !

He always did except on the fact that socialism works fine for Norway.

On 18/09/2019 12:47, T i m wrote:

So, AFAIK, nothing has been done about the parking scheme because in
reality, it would make the lives of many many people more complicated
and expensive and so few returned the poll.

Around my way a similar poll about parking had a good response. Possibly
because many people realised that similar schemes in the town had
resulted in residents having to pay for the permits plus it didn't
guarantee a parking space, let alone one outside their own house.

As a result the idea about resident parking permits was dropped.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 06:29:11 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Nice one Rodney !

You've even got dozy Tim Streater agreeing with you now !

He always did except on the fact that socialism works fine for Norway.

There's NO "socialism" in Norway, you ****ing stupid senile retard from Oz!
How often do you still need to be told? Or are you just trolling? BG

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 22:04:29 +0100, alan_m
wrote:

On 18/09/2019 12:47, T i m wrote:

So, AFAIK, nothing has been done about the parking scheme because in
reality, it would make the lives of many many people more complicated
and expensive and so few returned the poll.

Around my way a similar poll about parking had a good response. Possibly
because many people realised that similar schemes in the town had
resulted in residents having to pay for the permits plus it didn't
guarantee a parking space, let alone one outside their own house.

Yes, that was my reply when a local Counselor asked me.

As a result the idea about resident parking permits was dropped.

As it should, when only a minority show an interest in it. ;-)

However, if a Brexiteer was counting the votes, a return of 3 for
versus 2 against out of a population of 10,000 would mean it would be
carried. Democracy in action etc. ;-)

Cheers, T i m