News.individual.net, bad news if you're not german

On 02/01/2015 22:44, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 09:07:59 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 02 Jan 2015 08:13:34 +0000, Optimist
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 07:37:15 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 28/12/2014 21:44, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2014 21:06:58 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 26/12/2014 21:58, Michael R N Dolbear wrote:

"Ian Jackson" wrote

http://www.nigelfaragemep.co.uk/
See 'Contact'.

Actually, Nigel Farage isn't anti-EEC (the old European Economic
Union,
aka the Common Market) - he's against the EU, which now seems
hell-bent
more on political union, and (apparently) bugger the economics.

VAT was required for the EEC and made compulsory for all members and
new
entrants.

This change for cross-border services is an obvious fix which has
been
in progress since 2008 with all details available for more than a
year.

The four-letter party's MEPs were evidently too busy drawing their
expenses to notice.



They specifically claim not to take part in EU business.

A strange claim from a party which puts up candidates for election as
MEPs.


Their objective, presumably, is to take the money but not do the job the
are paid to do, in order to undermine the institution.

That's democracy - UKIP got more votes in the Euro elections last year
than any other party.

Apart from the Apathy party.

They didn't get any votes, stupid.

Whoosh !

It may be whoosh to you, but on occasions I haven't voted simply I
vehemently disagreed with elements of the party candidate's manifesto.

If there was a "no suitable candidate" I would have ticked that box.

On Fri, 02 Jan 2015 23:06:18 +0000, Fredxxx wrote:

On 02/01/2015 22:44, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 09:07:59 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 02 Jan 2015 08:13:34 +0000, Optimist
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 07:37:15 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 28/12/2014 21:44, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2014 21:06:58 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 26/12/2014 21:58, Michael R N Dolbear wrote:

"Ian Jackson" wrote

http://www.nigelfaragemep.co.uk/
See 'Contact'.

Actually, Nigel Farage isn't anti-EEC (the old European Economic
Union,
aka the Common Market) - he's against the EU, which now seems
hell-bent
more on political union, and (apparently) bugger the economics.

VAT was required for the EEC and made compulsory for all members and
new
entrants.

This change for cross-border services is an obvious fix which has
been
in progress since 2008 with all details available for more than a
year.

The four-letter party's MEPs were evidently too busy drawing their
expenses to notice.



They specifically claim not to take part in EU business.

A strange claim from a party which puts up candidates for election as
MEPs.


Their objective, presumably, is to take the money but not do the job the
are paid to do, in order to undermine the institution.

That's democracy - UKIP got more votes in the Euro elections last year
than any other party.

Apart from the Apathy party.

They didn't get any votes, stupid.

Whoosh !

It may be whoosh to you, but on occasions I haven't voted simply I
vehemently disagreed with elements of the party candidate's manifesto.

If there was a "no suitable candidate" I would have ticked that box.

That "box" is bounded by the four corners of the ballot paper or
anything else that clearly isn't a vote for a single candidate. If a
constituency returns that as the majority vote then it won't go
unnoticed unlike the count of those who just don't turn up.

"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 02 Jan 2015 23:06:18 +0000, Fredxxx wrote:

On 02/01/2015 22:44, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 09:07:59 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 02 Jan 2015 08:13:34 +0000, Optimist
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 07:37:15 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 28/12/2014 21:44, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2014 21:06:58 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 26/12/2014 21:58, Michael R N Dolbear wrote:

"Ian Jackson" wrote

http://www.nigelfaragemep.co.uk/
See 'Contact'.

Actually, Nigel Farage isn't anti-EEC (the old European Economic
Union,
aka the Common Market) - he's against the EU, which now seems
hell-bent
more on political union, and (apparently) bugger the economics.

VAT was required for the EEC and made compulsory for all members
and
new
entrants.

This change for cross-border services is an obvious fix which has
been
in progress since 2008 with all details available for more than a
year.

The four-letter party's MEPs were evidently too busy drawing
their
expenses to notice.



They specifically claim not to take part in EU business.

A strange claim from a party which puts up candidates for election
as
MEPs.


Their objective, presumably, is to take the money but not do the job
the
are paid to do, in order to undermine the institution.

That's democracy - UKIP got more votes in the Euro elections last
year
than any other party.

Apart from the Apathy party.

They didn't get any votes, stupid.

Whoosh !

It may be whoosh to you, but on occasions I haven't voted simply I
vehemently disagreed with elements of the party candidate's manifesto.

If there was a "no suitable candidate" I would have ticked that box.

That "box" is bounded by the four corners of the ballot paper or
anything else that clearly isn't a vote for a single candidate. If a
constituency returns that as the majority vote then it won't go
unnoticed unlike the count of those who just don't turn up.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that any of those
did actually intend to say "no suitable candidate".

On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 13:35:06 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 02 Jan 2015 23:06:18 +0000, Fredxxx wrote:

On 02/01/2015 22:44, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 09:07:59 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 02 Jan 2015 08:13:34 +0000, Optimist
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 07:37:15 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 28/12/2014 21:44, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2014 21:06:58 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 26/12/2014 21:58, Michael R N Dolbear wrote:

"Ian Jackson" wrote

http://www.nigelfaragemep.co.uk/
See 'Contact'.

Actually, Nigel Farage isn't anti-EEC (the old European Economic
Union,
aka the Common Market) - he's against the EU, which now seems
hell-bent
more on political union, and (apparently) bugger the economics.

VAT was required for the EEC and made compulsory for all members
and
new
entrants.

This change for cross-border services is an obvious fix which has
been
in progress since 2008 with all details available for more than a
year.

The four-letter party's MEPs were evidently too busy drawing
their
expenses to notice.



They specifically claim not to take part in EU business.

A strange claim from a party which puts up candidates for election
as
MEPs.


Their objective, presumably, is to take the money but not do the job
the
are paid to do, in order to undermine the institution.

That's democracy - UKIP got more votes in the Euro elections last
year
than any other party.

Apart from the Apathy party.

They didn't get any votes, stupid.

Whoosh !

It may be whoosh to you, but on occasions I haven't voted simply I
vehemently disagreed with elements of the party candidate's manifesto.

If there was a "no suitable candidate" I would have ticked that box.

That "box" is bounded by the four corners of the ballot paper or
anything else that clearly isn't a vote for a single candidate. If a
constituency returns that as the majority vote then it won't go
unnoticed unlike the count of those who just don't turn up.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that any of those
did actually intend to say "no suitable candidate".

Bearing in mind I'm dealing with the UK, if a majority of the
electorate on a good turnout was to do so there would be little other
interpretation to be put on it (although you'll probably still get a
scoundrel declared as winner unless a previous unknown manages to
please the majority). It certainly gives a different message from a
low turnout.

"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 13:35:06 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 02 Jan 2015 23:06:18 +0000, Fredxxx wrote:

On 02/01/2015 22:44, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 09:07:59 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 02 Jan 2015 08:13:34 +0000, Optimist
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 07:37:15 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 28/12/2014 21:44, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2014 21:06:58 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 26/12/2014 21:58, Michael R N Dolbear wrote:

"Ian Jackson" wrote

http://www.nigelfaragemep.co.uk/
See 'Contact'.

Actually, Nigel Farage isn't anti-EEC (the old European
Economic
Union,
aka the Common Market) - he's against the EU, which now seems
hell-bent
more on political union, and (apparently) bugger the economics.

VAT was required for the EEC and made compulsory for all
members
and
new
entrants.

This change for cross-border services is an obvious fix which
has
been
in progress since 2008 with all details available for more than
a
year.

The four-letter party's MEPs were evidently too busy drawing
their
expenses to notice.



They specifically claim not to take part in EU business.

A strange claim from a party which puts up candidates for
election
as
MEPs.


Their objective, presumably, is to take the money but not do the
job
the
are paid to do, in order to undermine the institution.

That's democracy - UKIP got more votes in the Euro elections last
year
than any other party.

Apart from the Apathy party.

They didn't get any votes, stupid.

Whoosh !

It may be whoosh to you, but on occasions I haven't voted simply I
vehemently disagreed with elements of the party candidate's manifesto.

If there was a "no suitable candidate" I would have ticked that box.

That "box" is bounded by the four corners of the ballot paper or
anything else that clearly isn't a vote for a single candidate. If a
constituency returns that as the majority vote then it won't go
unnoticed unlike the count of those who just don't turn up.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that any of those
did actually intend to say "no suitable candidate".

Bearing in mind I'm dealing with the UK, if a majority
of the electorate on a good turnout was to do so there
would be little other interpretation to be put on it

The other obvious interpretation to put on it is that
there is no real difference between the candidates
in the sense of what their partys are proposing.

That isnt the same thing as no suitable candidate.

(although you'll probably still get a scoundrel declared as winner

Few of them are scoundrels.

unless a previous unknown manages to please the majority).

Or just get some publicity that ensures that
those who did choose to vote did at least
recognise that particular candidate's name.

It certainly gives a different
message from a low turnout.

Yes, but even with a low turnout, the obvious
interpretation of that is that most of those
who didn't bother to vote had decided that
the parliament isnt actually that relevant to
what happens in the country as a whole and
that they aren't likely to make any real difference
to the result seen regardless of who is elected
in that particular seat.

On 03/01/2015 00:54, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jan 2015 23:06:18 +0000, Fredxxx wrote:

On 02/01/2015 22:44, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 09:07:59 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 02 Jan 2015 08:13:34 +0000, Optimist
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 07:37:15 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 28/12/2014 21:44, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2014 21:06:58 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 26/12/2014 21:58, Michael R N Dolbear wrote:

"Ian Jackson" wrote

http://www.nigelfaragemep.co.uk/
See 'Contact'.

Actually, Nigel Farage isn't anti-EEC (the old European Economic
Union,
aka the Common Market) - he's against the EU, which now seems
hell-bent
more on political union, and (apparently) bugger the economics.

VAT was required for the EEC and made compulsory for all members and
new
entrants.

This change for cross-border services is an obvious fix which has
been
in progress since 2008 with all details available for more than a
year.

The four-letter party's MEPs were evidently too busy drawing their
expenses to notice.



They specifically claim not to take part in EU business.

A strange claim from a party which puts up candidates for election as
MEPs.


Their objective, presumably, is to take the money but not do the job the
are paid to do, in order to undermine the institution.

That's democracy - UKIP got more votes in the Euro elections last year
than any other party.

Apart from the Apathy party.

They didn't get any votes, stupid.

Whoosh !

It may be whoosh to you, but on occasions I haven't voted simply I
vehemently disagreed with elements of the party candidate's manifesto.

If there was a "no suitable candidate" I would have ticked that box.

That "box" is bounded by the four corners of the ballot paper or
anything else that clearly isn't a vote for a single candidate. If a
constituency returns that as the majority vote then it won't go
unnoticed unlike the count of those who just don't turn up.


Currently the only way to do it is to "spoil" the ballot paper. Those,
at least, get counted. Problem is they are regarded as just by idiots
who can't work out how to vote properly.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 08:21:23 +0000, Graeme Wall wrote:

On 03/01/2015 00:54, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jan 2015 23:06:18 +0000, Fredxxx wrote:

On 02/01/2015 22:44, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 09:07:59 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 02 Jan 2015 08:13:34 +0000, Optimist
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 07:37:15 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 28/12/2014 21:44, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2014 21:06:58 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 26/12/2014 21:58, Michael R N Dolbear wrote:

"Ian Jackson" wrote

http://www.nigelfaragemep.co.uk/
See 'Contact'.

Actually, Nigel Farage isn't anti-EEC (the old European Economic
Union,
aka the Common Market) - he's against the EU, which now seems
hell-bent
more on political union, and (apparently) bugger the economics.

VAT was required for the EEC and made compulsory for all members and
new
entrants.

This change for cross-border services is an obvious fix which has
been
in progress since 2008 with all details available for more than a
year.

The four-letter party's MEPs were evidently too busy drawing their
expenses to notice.



They specifically claim not to take part in EU business.

A strange claim from a party which puts up candidates for election as
MEPs.


Their objective, presumably, is to take the money but not do the job the
are paid to do, in order to undermine the institution.

That's democracy - UKIP got more votes in the Euro elections last year
than any other party.

Apart from the Apathy party.

They didn't get any votes, stupid.

Whoosh !

It may be whoosh to you, but on occasions I haven't voted simply I
vehemently disagreed with elements of the party candidate's manifesto.

If there was a "no suitable candidate" I would have ticked that box.

That "box" is bounded by the four corners of the ballot paper or
anything else that clearly isn't a vote for a single candidate. If a
constituency returns that as the majority vote then it won't go
unnoticed unlike the count of those who just don't turn up.


Currently the only way to do it is to "spoil" the ballot paper. Those,
at least, get counted. Problem is they are regarded as just by idiots
who can't work out how to vote properly.

If you don't like what's on offer, then stand yourself. It's quite easy to submit nomination
papers. For parliamentary elections you have to put up a deposit of £500 which you lose if you
don't get 5% of the votes cast. There is no deposit in local elections.

"Optimist" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 08:21:23 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 03/01/2015 00:54, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jan 2015 23:06:18 +0000, Fredxxx wrote:

On 02/01/2015 22:44, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 09:07:59 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 02 Jan 2015 08:13:34 +0000, Optimist
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 07:37:15 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 28/12/2014 21:44, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2014 21:06:58 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 26/12/2014 21:58, Michael R N Dolbear wrote:

"Ian Jackson" wrote

http://www.nigelfaragemep.co.uk/
See 'Contact'.

Actually, Nigel Farage isn't anti-EEC (the old European
Economic
Union,
aka the Common Market) - he's against the EU, which now seems
hell-bent
more on political union, and (apparently) bugger the economics.

VAT was required for the EEC and made compulsory for all
members and
new
entrants.

This change for cross-border services is an obvious fix which
has
been
in progress since 2008 with all details available for more than
a
year.

The four-letter party's MEPs were evidently too busy drawing
their
expenses to notice.



They specifically claim not to take part in EU business.

A strange claim from a party which puts up candidates for
election as
MEPs.


Their objective, presumably, is to take the money but not do the
job the
are paid to do, in order to undermine the institution.

That's democracy - UKIP got more votes in the Euro elections last
year
than any other party.

Apart from the Apathy party.

They didn't get any votes, stupid.

Whoosh !

It may be whoosh to you, but on occasions I haven't voted simply I
vehemently disagreed with elements of the party candidate's manifesto.

If there was a "no suitable candidate" I would have ticked that box.

That "box" is bounded by the four corners of the ballot paper or
anything else that clearly isn't a vote for a single candidate. If a
constituency returns that as the majority vote then it won't go
unnoticed unlike the count of those who just don't turn up.


Currently the only way to do it is to "spoil" the ballot paper. Those,
at least, get counted. Problem is they are regarded as just by idiots
who can't work out how to vote properly.

If you don't like what's on offer, then stand yourself.

No thanks. With a first past the post
system, that is a complete waste of time.

It's quite easy to submit nomination papers.

Yes, but still completely pointless.

For parliamentary elections you have to put up a deposit
of £500 which you lose if you don't get 5% of the votes cast.

Which you won't so that is ****ing your £500 against the wall.

There is no deposit in local elections.

Still a complete waste of your time.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Charles Ellson" wrote in message


That "box" is bounded by the four corners of the ballot paper or
anything else that clearly isn't a vote for a single candidate. If a
constituency returns that as the majority vote then it won't go
unnoticed unlike the count of those who just don't turn up.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that any of those
did actually intend to say "no suitable candidate".

Agreed, they could instead be saying I "like" all of them equally

tim

On 03/01/2015 10:41, tim..... wrote:

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Charles Ellson" wrote in message


That "box" is bounded by the four corners of the ballot paper or
anything else that clearly isn't a vote for a single candidate. If a
constituency returns that as the majority vote then it won't go
unnoticed unlike the count of those who just don't turn up.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that any of those
did actually intend to say "no suitable candidate".

Agreed, they could instead be saying I "like" all of them equally


Most of them are too lazy to bother but will be up there moaning about
the government as soon as it does anything that affects them.


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail