FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > South Thanet MP charged with election fraud
South Thanet MP charged with election fraud
Jump to: Newest in thread
The South Thanet Conservative MP Craig McKinnley has been charged by police with election fraud at the 2015 general election. Nigel Farage can hold his head high knowing he was the real winner of that seat in the 2015 general election. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The South Thanet Conservative MP Craig McKinnley has been charged by police with election fraud at the 2015 general election. Nigel Farage can hold his head high knowing he was the real winner of that seat in the 2015 general election. "
lol they gave this to nigel on a plate.
im sure there were loads more electoral fraud offences but were dismissed.
this is nigels award. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The South Thanet Conservative MP Craig McKinnley has been charged by police with election fraud at the 2015 general election. Nigel Farage can hold his head high knowing he was the real winner of that seat in the 2015 general election. lol they gave this to nigel on a plate.
im sure there were loads more electoral fraud offences but were dismissed.
this is nigels award."
The other cases were dropped because there was little or no evidence. South Thanet is the only case where police have pressed charges. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The South Thanet Conservative MP Craig McKinnley has been charged by police with election fraud at the 2015 general election. Nigel Farage can hold his head high knowing he was the real winner of that seat in the 2015 general election. "
Err no.
Being charged is not the same as being guilty.
Even if he was guilty, that doesn't mean 3,000 more people would have voted differently. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
all other constituencies had the same dealings, only thing they couldnt find out was did the tories know they were committing election fraud and they couldnt find any evidence.
this is just a little token reward for all of farages work.
give him some more limelight.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The South Thanet Conservative MP Craig McKinnley has been charged by police with election fraud at the 2015 general election. Nigel Farage can hold his head high knowing he was the real winner of that seat in the 2015 general election.
Err no.
Being charged is not the same as being guilty.
Even if he was guilty, that doesn't mean 3,000 more people would have voted differently. "
A number of different seats were originally looked into by police, i think the fact this is the only one where charges have been brought forward speaks volumes while the others were all dropped. The police investigating must be very confident they have a good case against Mackinlay.
Mackinlay got around 2,800 more votes than Farage, that is not a huge majority, and could have easily gone the other way had he not cheated. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Op how's the issue with the kippers financial doings in the EU going?
Also what was the difference in the vote there last time?"
Result in South Thanet in the 2015 general election was.....
Mackinlay, Conservative = 18,838
Farage, Ukip = 16,026
So only a majority of around 2,800 votes. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The South Thanet Conservative MP Craig McKinnley has been charged by police with election fraud at the 2015 general election. Nigel Farage can hold his head high knowing he was the real winner of that seat in the 2015 general election.
Err no.
Being charged is not the same as being guilty.
Even if he was guilty, that doesn't mean 3,000 more people would have voted differently.
A number of different seats were originally looked into by police, i think the fact this is the only one where charges have been brought forward speaks volumes while the others were all dropped. The police investigating must be very confident they have a good case against Mackinlay.
Mackinlay got around 2,800 more votes than Farage, that is not a huge majority, and could have easily gone the other way had he not cheated. "
No not easily, there's no evidence for that other than your own imagination. Perhaps if the leave campaign hadn't lied about £350m for the NHS then we'd have voted to remain. There's at least some evidence for that. But we'll never know will we. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago
Barbados |
"The South Thanet Conservative MP Craig McKinnley has been charged by police with election fraud at the 2015 general election. Nigel Farage can hold his head high knowing he was the real winner of that seat in the 2015 general election.
Err no.
Being charged is not the same as being guilty.
Even if he was guilty, that doesn't mean 3,000 more people would have voted differently.
A number of different seats were originally looked into by police, i think the fact this is the only one where charges have been brought forward speaks volumes while the others were all dropped. The police investigating must be very confident they have a good case against Mackinlay.
Mackinlay got around 2,800 more votes than Farage, that is not a huge majority, and could have easily gone the other way had he not cheated.
No not easily, there's no evidence for that other than your own imagination. Perhaps if the leave campaign hadn't lied about £350m for the NHS then we'd have voted to remain. There's at least some evidence for that. But we'll never know will we. "
Well, BoJo and The Sun are still claiming (yesterday) that we still can claim £350M back for the NHS... so it's a lie that refuses to go away.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3702757/boris-johnson-insists-britain-can-claim-back-350m-a-week-from-the-eu-in-fiery-sun-debate/
-Matt |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *obka3Couple
over a year ago
bournemouth |
"So OP, are you going to vote for a bunch of fraudsters?
Bunch of fraudsters? How do you equate 1 person in 1 seat to being a 'bunch'? 
I'll take that as a yes then! "
I take it you will stillvote forparties that had members caught up in the expense scandal, any other group that would be fraud |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The South Thanet Conservative MP Craig McKinnley has been charged by police with election fraud at the 2015 general election. Nigel Farage can hold his head high knowing he was the real winner of that seat in the 2015 general election.
Err no.
Being charged is not the same as being guilty.
Even if he was guilty, that doesn't mean 3,000 more people would have voted differently.
A number of different seats were originally looked into by police, i think the fact this is the only one where charges have been brought forward speaks volumes while the others were all dropped. The police investigating must be very confident they have a good case against Mackinlay.
Mackinlay got around 2,800 more votes than Farage, that is not a huge majority, and could have easily gone the other way had he not cheated.
No not easily, there's no evidence for that other than your own imagination. Perhaps if the leave campaign hadn't lied about £350m for the NHS then we'd have voted to remain. There's at least some evidence for that. But we'll never know will we.
Well, BoJo and The Sun are still claiming (yesterday) that we still can claim £350M back for the NHS... so it's a lie that refuses to go away.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3702757/boris-johnson-insists-britain-can-claim-back-350m-a-week-from-the-eu-in-fiery-sun-debate/
-Matt"
Did you see that silly bitch in the audience of the BBC leaders debate who actually admitted, via her question, that the £350m was the only reason she voted leave? Just wear a dunce hat next time love, it'll be less embarassing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So OP, are you going to vote for a bunch of fraudsters?
Bunch of fraudsters? How do you equate 1 person in 1 seat to being a 'bunch'?
I'll take that as a yes then!
I take it you will stillvote forparties that had members caught up in the expense scandal, any other group that would be fraud"
If you're not cheating, you're not trying. What is it with British people and the obsession over rules? When did we become so... German? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So OP, are you going to vote for a bunch of fraudsters?
Bunch of fraudsters? How do you equate 1 person in 1 seat to being a 'bunch'?
I'll take that as a yes then!
I take it you will stillvote forparties that had members caught up in the expense scandal, any other group that would be fraud
If you're not cheating, you're not trying. What is it with British people and the obsession over rules? When did we become so... German? "
A sense of fair play has always been a British trait, you could almost say a British value. Do you cheer for Argentina in the world cup? I take it you approve of Maradonna's hand ball (hand of god) goal against England in 1986 world cup quarter final? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So OP, are you going to vote for a bunch of fraudsters?
Bunch of fraudsters? How do you equate 1 person in 1 seat to being a 'bunch'?
I'll take that as a yes then!
I take it you will stillvote forparties that had members caught up in the expense scandal, any other group that would be fraud
If you're not cheating, you're not trying. What is it with British people and the obsession over rules? When did we become so... German?
A sense of fair play has always been a British trait, you could almost say a British value. Do you cheer for Argentina in the world cup? I take it you approve of Maradonna's hand ball (hand of god) goal against England in 1986 world cup quarter final? "
In reality you just don't like it because he was on the other side. As Thucydides said "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must". Written 380 BC and nothing has changed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago
Barbados |
"The South Thanet Conservative MP Craig McKinnley has been charged by police with election fraud at the 2015 general election. Nigel Farage can hold his head high knowing he was the real winner of that seat in the 2015 general election.
Err no.
Being charged is not the same as being guilty.
Even if he was guilty, that doesn't mean 3,000 more people would have voted differently.
A number of different seats were originally looked into by police, i think the fact this is the only one where charges have been brought forward speaks volumes while the others were all dropped. The police investigating must be very confident they have a good case against Mackinlay.
Mackinlay got around 2,800 more votes than Farage, that is not a huge majority, and could have easily gone the other way had he not cheated.
No not easily, there's no evidence for that other than your own imagination. Perhaps if the leave campaign hadn't lied about £350m for the NHS then we'd have voted to remain. There's at least some evidence for that. But we'll never know will we.
Well, BoJo and The Sun are still claiming (yesterday) that we still can claim £350M back for the NHS... so it's a lie that refuses to go away.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3702757/boris-johnson-insists-britain-can-claim-back-350m-a-week-from-the-eu-in-fiery-sun-debate/
-Matt
Did you see that silly bitch in the audience of the BBC leaders debate who actually admitted, via her question, that the £350m was the only reason she voted leave? Just wear a dunce hat next time love, it'll be less embarassing. "
This is where the likes of CM or Centaur would berate you for belittling the UK population. And to be honest, I might actually agree with them. These are people that were mislead by the politicians that are meant to be working for them. Alas, yes, it was a blatent lie on the bus, but that woman would not be alone I'm sure in her belief that it was true and why she voted to leave. I mean the Leave campaign ran national TV ads showing what that money would do for the NHS. It looked pretty convincing.
Maybe I've just moved on to the 'acceptance' stage of grief for our country and it's role in Europe right now.
-Matt |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The South Thanet Conservative MP Craig McKinnley has been charged by police with election fraud at the 2015 general election. Nigel Farage can hold his head high knowing he was the real winner of that seat in the 2015 general election.
Err no.
Being charged is not the same as being guilty.
Even if he was guilty, that doesn't mean 3,000 more people would have voted differently.
A number of different seats were originally looked into by police, i think the fact this is the only one where charges have been brought forward speaks volumes while the others were all dropped. The police investigating must be very confident they have a good case against Mackinlay.
Mackinlay got around 2,800 more votes than Farage, that is not a huge majority, and could have easily gone the other way had he not cheated.
No not easily, there's no evidence for that other than your own imagination. Perhaps if the leave campaign hadn't lied about £350m for the NHS then we'd have voted to remain. There's at least some evidence for that. But we'll never know will we.
Well, BoJo and The Sun are still claiming (yesterday) that we still can claim £350M back for the NHS... so it's a lie that refuses to go away.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3702757/boris-johnson-insists-britain-can-claim-back-350m-a-week-from-the-eu-in-fiery-sun-debate/
-Matt
Did you see that silly bitch in the audience of the BBC leaders debate who actually admitted, via her question, that the £350m was the only reason she voted leave? Just wear a dunce hat next time love, it'll be less embarassing.
This is where the likes of CM or Centaur would berate you for belittling the UK population. And to be honest, I might actually agree with them. These are people that were mislead by the politicians that are meant to be working for them. Alas, yes, it was a blatent lie on the bus, but that woman would not be alone I'm sure in her belief that it was true and why she voted to leave. I mean the Leave campaign ran national TV ads showing what that money would do for the NHS. It looked pretty convincing.
Maybe I've just moved on to the 'acceptance' stage of grief for our country and it's role in Europe right now.
-Matt"
I've long said that people like her should not be allowed to vote. Democracy was not invented for idiots. I actually heard the enlightenment thinkers face palm when she spoke those words. Then they cried out "it was never meant to be this way". |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"So OP, are you going to vote for a bunch of fraudsters?
Bunch of fraudsters? How do you equate 1 person in 1 seat to being a 'bunch'?
I'll take that as a yes then!
I take it you will stillvote forparties that had members caught up in the expense scandal, any other group that would be fraud"
Both the Tories and UKIP have got form for it, and the OP is daft enough to vote for both of them! I presume he must be one of those voters taken in by the extra money that has been spent, if the aforementioned played by the rules, the OP might be a lib dem or Labour voter. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So OP, are you going to vote for a bunch of fraudsters?
Bunch of fraudsters? How do you equate 1 person in 1 seat to being a 'bunch'?
I'll take that as a yes then!
I take it you will stillvote forparties that had members caught up in the expense scandal, any other group that would be fraud
Both the Tories and UKIP have got form for it, and the OP is daft enough to vote for both of them! I presume he must be one of those voters taken in by the extra money that has been spent, if the aforementioned played by the rules, the OP might be a lib dem or Labour voter."
Labour are biggest frausters going! Effectively they buy votes by using the state to employ people in jobs that don't need doing because they know full well those people will probably join a trade union and vote for them. Then they create an untermensch that is entirely dependent on welfare, because those people will also vote for them.
When they know they are going to lose an election they ramp up tax, spending and benefits in the full knowledge that the incoming government will have to cut them. This then gives labour the narrative it needs to get back into power and start the cycle again.
Then you have the cheek to go after a tory for simply fiddling the books a little. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So OP, are you going to vote for a bunch of fraudsters?
Bunch of fraudsters? How do you equate 1 person in 1 seat to being a 'bunch'?
I'll take that as a yes then!
I take it you will stillvote forparties that had members caught up in the expense scandal, any other group that would be fraud
Both the Tories and UKIP have got form for it, and the OP is daft enough to vote for both of them! I presume he must be one of those voters taken in by the extra money that has been spent, if the aforementioned played by the rules, the OP might be a lib dem or Labour voter."
What a short memory you have. Both Labour and the Lib dems were given the maximum fines available by the electoral commission for fiddling their books on spending limits in the 2015 general election. Hell there were even threads on here about it and you posted in both of them! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So OP, are you going to vote for a bunch of fraudsters?
Bunch of fraudsters? How do you equate 1 person in 1 seat to being a 'bunch'?
I'll take that as a yes then!
I take it you will stillvote forparties that had members caught up in the expense scandal, any other group that would be fraud
Both the Tories and UKIP have got form for it, and the OP is daft enough to vote for both of them! I presume he must be one of those voters taken in by the extra money that has been spent, if the aforementioned played by the rules, the OP might be a lib dem or Labour voter.
Labour are biggest frausters going! Effectively they buy votes by using the state to employ people in jobs that don't need doing because they know full well those people will probably join a trade union and vote for them. Then they create an untermensch that is entirely dependent on welfare, because those people will also vote for them.
When they know they are going to lose an election they ramp up tax, spending and benefits in the full knowledge that the incoming government will have to cut them. This then gives labour the narrative it needs to get back into power and start the cycle again.
Then you have the cheek to go after a tory for simply fiddling the books a little. "
Labour play the game well.The tories rely on wealthy backers to keep them in the game.Which is worse? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So OP, are you going to vote for a bunch of fraudsters?
Bunch of fraudsters? How do you equate 1 person in 1 seat to being a 'bunch'?
I'll take that as a yes then!
I take it you will stillvote forparties that had members caught up in the expense scandal, any other group that would be fraud
Both the Tories and UKIP have got form for it, and the OP is daft enough to vote for both of them! I presume he must be one of those voters taken in by the extra money that has been spent, if the aforementioned played by the rules, the OP might be a lib dem or Labour voter.
Labour are biggest frausters going! Effectively they buy votes by using the state to employ people in jobs that don't need doing because they know full well those people will probably join a trade union and vote for them. Then they create an untermensch that is entirely dependent on welfare, because those people will also vote for them.
When they know they are going to lose an election they ramp up tax, spending and benefits in the full knowledge that the incoming government will have to cut them. This then gives labour the narrative it needs to get back into power and start the cycle again.
Then you have the cheek to go after a tory for simply fiddling the books a little. Labour play the game well.The tories rely on wealthy backers to keep them in the game.Which is worse?"
The limited things in the world are time and materials, rather than money itself. Economics is the task of converting those time and materials into the things we need to survive and prosper. If you believe that the private sector is generally better at achieving that than the public sector then labour are worse. If you don't believe that then you haven't studied the cold war properly. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The South Thanet Conservative MP Craig McKinnley has been charged by police with election fraud at the 2015 general election. Nigel Farage can hold his head high knowing he was the real winner of that seat in the 2015 general election.
Err no.
Being charged is not the same as being guilty.
Even if he was guilty, that doesn't mean 3,000 more people would have voted differently.
A number of different seats were originally looked into by police, i think the fact this is the only one where charges have been brought forward speaks volumes while the others were all dropped. The police investigating must be very confident they have a good case against Mackinlay.
Mackinlay got around 2,800 more votes than Farage, that is not a huge majority, and could have easily gone the other way had he not cheated.
No not easily, there's no evidence for that other than your own imagination. Perhaps if the leave campaign hadn't lied about £350m for the NHS then we'd have voted to remain. There's at least some evidence for that. But we'll never know will we.
Well, BoJo and The Sun are still claiming (yesterday) that we still can claim £350M back for the NHS... so it's a lie that refuses to go away.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3702757/boris-johnson-insists-britain-can-claim-back-350m-a-week-from-the-eu-in-fiery-sun-debate/
-Matt
Did you see that silly bitch in the audience of the BBC leaders debate who actually admitted, via her question, that the £350m was the only reason she voted leave? Just wear a dunce hat next time love, it'll be less embarassing.
This is where the likes of CM or Centaur would berate you for belittling the UK population. And to be honest, I might actually agree with them. These are people that were mislead by the politicians that are meant to be working for them. Alas, yes, it was a blatent lie on the bus, but that woman would not be alone I'm sure in her belief that it was true and why she voted to leave. I mean the Leave campaign ran national TV ads showing what that money would do for the NHS. It looked pretty convincing.
Maybe I've just moved on to the 'acceptance' stage of grief for our country and it's role in Europe right now.
-Matt
I've long said that people like her should not be allowed to vote. Democracy was not invented for idiots. I actually heard the enlightenment thinkers face palm when she spoke those words. Then they cried out "it was never meant to be this way". "
Hmmnn, lets just gloss over the lies told by the remain campaign and the idiots who were dumb enough to vote remain because they were scared enough by those lies to vote remain. Lies such as an immediate recession in the event the country votes Leave (never happened), George Osborne's crystal ball gazing ahead to the year 2030 and saying every person will be £2400 worse off (or bogus figure there abouts), Cameron's WW3 and we'll be at the back of the queue for a trade deal with the USA (Trump put the spanner in the works for Obama's scaremongering on that one). I could go on and on but i think you get the general idea now.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So OP, are you going to vote for a bunch of fraudsters?
Bunch of fraudsters? How do you equate 1 person in 1 seat to being a 'bunch'?
I'll take that as a yes then!
I take it you will stillvote forparties that had members caught up in the expense scandal, any other group that would be fraud
If you're not cheating, you're not trying. What is it with British people and the obsession over rules? When did we become so... German?
A sense of fair play has always been a British trait, you could almost say a British value. Do you cheer for Argentina in the world cup? I take it you approve of Maradonna's hand ball (hand of god) goal against England in 1986 world cup quarter final?
In reality you just don't like it because he was on the other side. As Thucydides said "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must". Written 380 BC and nothing has changed. "
The strong can win without cheating and the weak can cheat and still end up suffering. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So OP, are you going to vote for a bunch of fraudsters?
Bunch of fraudsters? How do you equate 1 person in 1 seat to being a 'bunch'?
I'll take that as a yes then!
I take it you will stillvote forparties that had members caught up in the expense scandal, any other group that would be fraud
Both the Tories and UKIP have got form for it, and the OP is daft enough to vote for both of them! I presume he must be one of those voters taken in by the extra money that has been spent, if the aforementioned played by the rules, the OP might be a lib dem or Labour voter.
Labour are biggest frausters going! Effectively they buy votes by using the state to employ people in jobs that don't need doing because they know full well those people will probably join a trade union and vote for them. Then they create an untermensch that is entirely dependent on welfare, because those people will also vote for them.
When they know they are going to lose an election they ramp up tax, spending and benefits in the full knowledge that the incoming government will have to cut them. This then gives labour the narrative it needs to get back into power and start the cycle again.
Then you have the cheek to go after a tory for simply fiddling the books a little. Labour play the game well.The tories rely on wealthy backers to keep them in the game.Which is worse?
The limited things in the world are time and materials, rather than money itself. Economics is the task of converting those time and materials into the things we need to survive and prosper. If you believe that the private sector is generally better at achieving that than the public sector then labour are worse. If you don't believe that then you haven't studied the cold war properly. "
The public sector doesn't deliver resources they provide services.The reason resources dont get to the people is money or lack of it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The South Thanet Conservative MP Craig McKinnley has been charged by police with election fraud at the 2015 general election. Nigel Farage can hold his head high knowing he was the real winner of that seat in the 2015 general election.
Err no.
Being charged is not the same as being guilty.
Even if he was guilty, that doesn't mean 3,000 more people would have voted differently.
A number of different seats were originally looked into by police, i think the fact this is the only one where charges have been brought forward speaks volumes while the others were all dropped. The police investigating must be very confident they have a good case against Mackinlay.
Mackinlay got around 2,800 more votes than Farage, that is not a huge majority, and could have easily gone the other way had he not cheated.
No not easily, there's no evidence for that other than your own imagination. Perhaps if the leave campaign hadn't lied about £350m for the NHS then we'd have voted to remain. There's at least some evidence for that. But we'll never know will we.
Well, BoJo and The Sun are still claiming (yesterday) that we still can claim £350M back for the NHS... so it's a lie that refuses to go away.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3702757/boris-johnson-insists-britain-can-claim-back-350m-a-week-from-the-eu-in-fiery-sun-debate/
-Matt
Did you see that silly bitch in the audience of the BBC leaders debate who actually admitted, via her question, that the £350m was the only reason she voted leave? Just wear a dunce hat next time love, it'll be less embarassing.
This is where the likes of CM or Centaur would berate you for belittling the UK population. And to be honest, I might actually agree with them. These are people that were mislead by the politicians that are meant to be working for them. Alas, yes, it was a blatent lie on the bus, but that woman would not be alone I'm sure in her belief that it was true and why she voted to leave. I mean the Leave campaign ran national TV ads showing what that money would do for the NHS. It looked pretty convincing.
Maybe I've just moved on to the 'acceptance' stage of grief for our country and it's role in Europe right now.
-Matt
I've long said that people like her should not be allowed to vote. Democracy was not invented for idiots. I actually heard the enlightenment thinkers face palm when she spoke those words. Then they cried out "it was never meant to be this way".
Hmmnn, lets just gloss over the lies told by the remain campaign and the idiots who were dumb enough to vote remain because they were scared enough by those lies to vote remain. Lies such as an immediate recession in the event the country votes Leave (never happened), George Osborne's crystal ball gazing ahead to the year 2030 and saying every person will be £2400 worse off (or bogus figure there abouts), Cameron's WW3 and we'll be at the back of the queue for a trade deal with the USA (Trump put the spanner in the works for Obama's scaremongering on that one). I could go on and on but i think you get the general idea now...."
You miss my point. I'm not judging people's decision to vote leave or remain. I'm judging the basis on which they made that decision. Anyone who is so easily swayed one way of the other is a liability to a proper functioning democracy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Op how's the issue with the kippers financial doings in the EU going?
Also what was the difference in the vote there last time?
Result in South Thanet in the 2015 general election was.....
Mackinlay, Conservative = 18,838
Farage, Ukip = 16,026
So only a majority of around 2,800 votes. "
Ta..
How's the financial issue? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So OP, are you going to vote for a bunch of fraudsters?
Bunch of fraudsters? How do you equate 1 person in 1 seat to being a 'bunch'?
I'll take that as a yes then!
I take it you will stillvote forparties that had members caught up in the expense scandal, any other group that would be fraud
Both the Tories and UKIP have got form for it, and the OP is daft enough to vote for both of them! I presume he must be one of those voters taken in by the extra money that has been spent, if the aforementioned played by the rules, the OP might be a lib dem or Labour voter.
Labour are biggest frausters going! Effectively they buy votes by using the state to employ people in jobs that don't need doing because they know full well those people will probably join a trade union and vote for them. Then they create an untermensch that is entirely dependent on welfare, because those people will also vote for them.
When they know they are going to lose an election they ramp up tax, spending and benefits in the full knowledge that the incoming government will have to cut them. This then gives labour the narrative it needs to get back into power and start the cycle again.
Then you have the cheek to go after a tory for simply fiddling the books a little. Labour play the game well.The tories rely on wealthy backers to keep them in the game.Which is worse?
The limited things in the world are time and materials, rather than money itself. Economics is the task of converting those time and materials into the things we need to survive and prosper. If you believe that the private sector is generally better at achieving that than the public sector then labour are worse. If you don't believe that then you haven't studied the cold war properly. The public sector doesn't deliver resources they provide services.The reason resources dont get to the people is money or lack of it."
Where did i say resources? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago
Barbados |
"So OP, are you going to vote for a bunch of fraudsters?
Bunch of fraudsters? How do you equate 1 person in 1 seat to being a 'bunch'?
I'll take that as a yes then!
I take it you will stillvote forparties that had members caught up in the expense scandal, any other group that would be fraud
Both the Tories and UKIP have got form for it, and the OP is daft enough to vote for both of them! I presume he must be one of those voters taken in by the extra money that has been spent, if the aforementioned played by the rules, the OP might be a lib dem or Labour voter.
Labour are biggest frausters going! Effectively they buy votes by using the state to employ people in jobs that don't need doing because they know full well those people will probably join a trade union and vote for them. Then they create an untermensch that is entirely dependent on welfare, because those people will also vote for them.
When they know they are going to lose an election they ramp up tax, spending and benefits in the full knowledge that the incoming government will have to cut them. This then gives labour the narrative it needs to get back into power and start the cycle again.
Then you have the cheek to go after a tory for simply fiddling the books a little. Labour play the game well.The tories rely on wealthy backers to keep them in the game.Which is worse?
The limited things in the world are time and materials, rather than money itself. Economics is the task of converting those time and materials into the things we need to survive and prosper. If you believe that the private sector is generally better at achieving that than the public sector then labour are worse. If you don't believe that then you haven't studied the cold war properly. "
Ok, so taking something like healthcare as an example. How does this work? Private vs. State? If healthcare is provided by for-profit private companies, then those companies have a legal duty to their shareholders, not their customers or the country. So surely the comes a conflict of interest?
-Matt |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So OP, are you going to vote for a bunch of fraudsters?
Bunch of fraudsters? How do you equate 1 person in 1 seat to being a 'bunch'?
I'll take that as a yes then!
I take it you will stillvote forparties that had members caught up in the expense scandal, any other group that would be fraud
Both the Tories and UKIP have got form for it, and the OP is daft enough to vote for both of them! I presume he must be one of those voters taken in by the extra money that has been spent, if the aforementioned played by the rules, the OP might be a lib dem or Labour voter.
Labour are biggest frausters going! Effectively they buy votes by using the state to employ people in jobs that don't need doing because they know full well those people will probably join a trade union and vote for them. Then they create an untermensch that is entirely dependent on welfare, because those people will also vote for them.
When they know they are going to lose an election they ramp up tax, spending and benefits in the full knowledge that the incoming government will have to cut them. This then gives labour the narrative it needs to get back into power and start the cycle again.
Then you have the cheek to go after a tory for simply fiddling the books a little. Labour play the game well.The tories rely on wealthy backers to keep them in the game.Which is worse?
The limited things in the world are time and materials, rather than money itself. Economics is the task of converting those time and materials into the things we need to survive and prosper. If you believe that the private sector is generally better at achieving that than the public sector then labour are worse. If you don't believe that then you haven't studied the cold war properly.
Ok, so taking something like healthcare as an example. How does this work? Private vs. State? If healthcare is provided by for-profit private companies, then those companies have a legal duty to their shareholders, not their customers or the country. So surely the comes a conflict of interest?
-Matt"
That's one of those problems that doesn't have a perfect solution. You need to look at the agent-principle problem and it's applications in both the public and private sector to see that a government healthcare scheme isn't really run for the benefit of the patients either. The UK is not one of the worlds best healthcare systems, albeit it is cheaper than the better systems. The better systems are all mixtures of state and private, usually with mandatory insurance systems. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
You miss my point. I'm not judging people's decision to vote leave or remain. I'm judging the basis on which they made that decision. Anyone who is so easily swayed one way of the other is a liability to a proper functioning democracy. "
I remember on the radio the morning after the referendum people getting stopped in the street on air were saying they voted leave "coz theres 100 million turks gonna flood here coz turkey's joining the EU" or now the NHS will get this 350 million a week from next week
I didn't know if to feel sorry for them or want them removed from the gene pool. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So OP, are you going to vote for a bunch of fraudsters?
Bunch of fraudsters? How do you equate 1 person in 1 seat to being a 'bunch'?
I'll take that as a yes then!
I take it you will stillvote forparties that had members caught up in the expense scandal, any other group that would be fraud
Both the Tories and UKIP have got form for it, and the OP is daft enough to vote for both of them! I presume he must be one of those voters taken in by the extra money that has been spent, if the aforementioned played by the rules, the OP might be a lib dem or Labour voter.
Labour are biggest frausters going! Effectively they buy votes by using the state to employ people in jobs that don't need doing because they know full well those people will probably join a trade union and vote for them. Then they create an untermensch that is entirely dependent on welfare, because those people will also vote for them.
When they know they are going to lose an election they ramp up tax, spending and benefits in the full knowledge that the incoming government will have to cut them. This then gives labour the narrative it needs to get back into power and start the cycle again.
Then you have the cheek to go after a tory for simply fiddling the books a little. Labour play the game well.The tories rely on wealthy backers to keep them in the game.Which is worse?
The limited things in the world are time and materials, rather than money itself. Economics is the task of converting those time and materials into the things we need to survive and prosper. If you believe that the private sector is generally better at achieving that than the public sector then labour are worse. If you don't believe that then you haven't studied the cold war properly.
Ok, so taking something like healthcare as an example. How does this work? Private vs. State? If healthcare is provided by for-profit private companies, then those companies have a legal duty to their shareholders, not their customers or the country. So surely the comes a conflict of interest?
-Matt
That's one of those problems that doesn't have a perfect solution. You need to look at the agent-principle problem and it's applications in both the public and private sector to see that a government healthcare scheme isn't really run for the benefit of the patients either. The UK is not one of the worlds best healthcare systems, albeit it is cheaper than the better systems. The better systems are all mixtures of state and private, usually with mandatory insurance systems. "
Should we privatise education and children's services. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So OP, are you going to vote for a bunch of fraudsters?
Bunch of fraudsters? How do you equate 1 person in 1 seat to being a 'bunch'?
I'll take that as a yes then!
I take it you will stillvote forparties that had members caught up in the expense scandal, any other group that would be fraud
Both the Tories and UKIP have got form for it, and the OP is daft enough to vote for both of them! I presume he must be one of those voters taken in by the extra money that has been spent, if the aforementioned played by the rules, the OP might be a lib dem or Labour voter.
Labour are biggest frausters going! Effectively they buy votes by using the state to employ people in jobs that don't need doing because they know full well those people will probably join a trade union and vote for them. Then they create an untermensch that is entirely dependent on welfare, because those people will also vote for them.
When they know they are going to lose an election they ramp up tax, spending and benefits in the full knowledge that the incoming government will have to cut them. This then gives labour the narrative it needs to get back into power and start the cycle again.
Then you have the cheek to go after a tory for simply fiddling the books a little. Labour play the game well.The tories rely on wealthy backers to keep them in the game.Which is worse?
The limited things in the world are time and materials, rather than money itself. Economics is the task of converting those time and materials into the things we need to survive and prosper. If you believe that the private sector is generally better at achieving that than the public sector then labour are worse. If you don't believe that then you haven't studied the cold war properly.
Ok, so taking something like healthcare as an example. How does this work? Private vs. State? If healthcare is provided by for-profit private companies, then those companies have a legal duty to their shareholders, not their customers or the country. So surely the comes a conflict of interest?
-Matt
That's one of those problems that doesn't have a perfect solution. You need to look at the agent-principle problem and it's applications in both the public and private sector to see that a government healthcare scheme isn't really run for the benefit of the patients either. The UK is not one of the worlds best healthcare systems, albeit it is cheaper than the better systems. The better systems are all mixtures of state and private, usually with mandatory insurance systems. Should we privatise education and children's services. "
To achieve what? What's wrong with the current mix? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
You miss my point. I'm not judging people's decision to vote leave or remain. I'm judging the basis on which they made that decision. Anyone who is so easily swayed one way of the other is a liability to a proper functioning democracy.
I remember on the radio the morning after the referendum people getting stopped in the street on air were saying they voted leave "coz theres 100 million turks gonna flood here coz turkey's joining the EU" or now the NHS will get this 350 million a week from next week
I didn't know if to feel sorry for them or want them removed from the gene pool."
I don't want them removed from the gene pool. I just don't want them to have an equally weighted vote to myself. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So OP, are you going to vote for a bunch of fraudsters?
Bunch of fraudsters? How do you equate 1 person in 1 seat to being a 'bunch'?
I'll take that as a yes then!
I take it you will stillvote forparties that had members caught up in the expense scandal, any other group that would be fraud
Both the Tories and UKIP have got form for it, and the OP is daft enough to vote for both of them! I presume he must be one of those voters taken in by the extra money that has been spent, if the aforementioned played by the rules, the OP might be a lib dem or Labour voter.
Labour are biggest frausters going! Effectively they buy votes by using the state to employ people in jobs that don't need doing because they know full well those people will probably join a trade union and vote for them. Then they create an untermensch that is entirely dependent on welfare, because those people will also vote for them.
When they know they are going to lose an election they ramp up tax, spending and benefits in the full knowledge that the incoming government will have to cut them. This then gives labour the narrative it needs to get back into power and start the cycle again.
Then you have the cheek to go after a tory for simply fiddling the books a little. Labour play the game well.The tories rely on wealthy backers to keep them in the game.Which is worse?
The limited things in the world are time and materials, rather than money itself. Economics is the task of converting those time and materials into the things we need to survive and prosper. If you believe that the private sector is generally better at achieving that than the public sector then labour are worse. If you don't believe that then you haven't studied the cold war properly.
Ok, so taking something like healthcare as an example. How does this work? Private vs. State? If healthcare is provided by for-profit private companies, then those companies have a legal duty to their shareholders, not their customers or the country. So surely the comes a conflict of interest?
-Matt
That's one of those problems that doesn't have a perfect solution. You need to look at the agent-principle problem and it's applications in both the public and private sector to see that a government healthcare scheme isn't really run for the benefit of the patients either. The UK is not one of the worlds best healthcare systems, albeit it is cheaper than the better systems. The better systems are all mixtures of state and private, usually with mandatory insurance systems. Should we privatise education and children's services.
To achieve what? What's wrong with the current mix? "
Efficiency and greater investment. Creating employees that are required.Reducing costs for looked after children. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Should we privatise education and children's services.
To achieve what? What's wrong with the current mix? Efficiency and greater investment. Creating employees that are required.Reducing costs for looked after children."
To reduce childcare costs you simply need to change the legislation that limits the ratio of carers to children so severely. Our standards are far stricter than europe and it's not like all their kids die from accidents.
Private schools are more efficent because they are relatively small organisations giving the CEO / Headmaster very close contact with their customers and employees. But most charge somewhere in the region of £15k a year whilst state schools get around £4,500 per pupil. So the question is whether a private school could create a more efficient service for £4,500? I think they could by stripping out the sports and arts facilities. The private school i went to had 11 rugby pitches. The state school i went to had 2. We had our own theatre, gym, 2 swimming pools. The state school did not. These actually account for the bulk of the difference between the £4.5k and £15k. But then there's the issue of how you'd make it work in practice. Put it this way, as long as there's a government minister for education you can guarantee inefficiency. So if you kept that role but privatise schools you won't get any efficiency savings.
Not really sure what you meant by greater investment sorry. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
You miss my point. I'm not judging people's decision to vote leave or remain. I'm judging the basis on which they made that decision. Anyone who is so easily swayed one way of the other is a liability to a proper functioning democracy.
I remember on the radio the morning after the referendum people getting stopped in the street on air were saying they voted leave "coz theres 100 million turks gonna flood here coz turkey's joining the EU" or now the NHS will get this 350 million a week from next week
I didn't know if to feel sorry for them or want them removed from the gene pool.
I don't want them removed from the gene pool. I just don't want them to have an equally weighted vote to myself. "
The post I made earlier about Remain campaign lies and the people who were dumb enough to vote Remain for those reasons weighs up the balance though. I remember seeing some clips of people who voted Remain on YouTube sobbing that they couldn't fly to Europe anymore because the country had voted Leave. Just how dumb do you have to be to believe that? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Should we privatise education and children's services.
To achieve what? What's wrong with the current mix? Efficiency and greater investment. Creating employees that are required.Reducing costs for looked after children.
To reduce childcare costs you simply need to change the legislation that limits the ratio of carers to children so severely. Our standards are far stricter than europe and it's not like all their kids die from accidents.
Private schools are more efficent because they are relatively small organisations giving the CEO / Headmaster very close contact with their customers and employees. But most charge somewhere in the region of £15k a year whilst state schools get around £4,500 per pupil. So the question is whether a private school could create a more efficient service for £4,500? I think they could by stripping out the sports and arts facilities. The private school i went to had 11 rugby pitches. The state school i went to had 2. We had our own theatre, gym, 2 swimming pools. The state school did not. These actually account for the bulk of the difference between the £4.5k and £15k. But then there's the issue of how you'd make it work in practice. Put it this way, as long as there's a government minister for education you can guarantee inefficiency. So if you kept that role but privatise schools you won't get any efficiency savings.
Not really sure what you meant by greater investment sorry. "
The largest cost in a school is staffing. Private schools need to charge high fees to generate the income to sustain small class sizes. It's not rocket science |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Hmmnn, lets just gloss over the lies told by the remain campaign and the idiots who were dumb enough to vote remain because they were scared enough by those lies to vote remain. Lies such as an immediate recession in the event the country votes Leave (never happened), George Osborne's crystal ball gazing ahead to the year 2030 and saying every person will be £2400 worse off (or bogus figure there abouts), Cameron's WW3 and we'll be at the back of the queue for a trade deal with the USA (Trump put the spanner in the works for Obama's scaremongering on that one). I could go on and on but i think you get the general idea now...."
How many times have you posted about the prediction of a recession after a leave vote and been reminded that it was based on Camerons pledge to immediately trigger Article 50 the next day?
For a post criticising the Remain camp for being dishonest you could at least have been honest in your appraisal.
As for your other criticisms, its not 2030 yet and you havent got a trade deal with America yet, let alone a better one than you have through the EU.
If you have to rely on falsehoods to back up your argument it mustnt be a very good argument. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Hmmnn, lets just gloss over the lies told by the remain campaign and the idiots who were dumb enough to vote remain because they were scared enough by those lies to vote remain. Lies such as an immediate recession in the event the country votes Leave (never happened), George Osborne's crystal ball gazing ahead to the year 2030 and saying every person will be £2400 worse off (or bogus figure there abouts), Cameron's WW3 and we'll be at the back of the queue for a trade deal with the USA (Trump put the spanner in the works for Obama's scaremongering on that one). I could go on and on but i think you get the general idea now....
How many times have you posted about the prediction of a recession after a leave vote and been reminded that it was based on Camerons pledge to immediately trigger Article 50 the next day?
For a post criticising the Remain camp for being dishonest you could at least have been honest in your appraisal.
As for your other criticisms, its not 2030 yet and you havent got a trade deal with America yet, let alone a better one than you have through the EU.
If you have to rely on falsehoods to back up your argument it mustnt be a very good argument."
How many times do you have to be told it wasn't based on article 50 being triggered straight away. Many in the Remain camp said a leave vote on its own would trigger a recession. They've been proved wrong because it never happened. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The South Thanet Conservative MP Craig McKinnley has been charged by police with election fraud at the 2015 general election. Nigel Farage can hold his head high knowing he was the real winner of that seat in the 2015 general election. "
The big question is how many of South Thanet's Tories will still vote for McKinnley even though they know he is awaiting trial for electoral fraud? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The South Thanet Conservative MP Craig McKinnley has been charged by police with election fraud at the 2015 general election. Nigel Farage can hold his head high knowing he was the real winner of that seat in the 2015 general election.
The big question is how many of South Thanet's Tories will still vote for McKinnley even though they know he is awaiting trial for electoral fraud?"
Nigel Farage is making a speech in South Thanet today backing the ukip candidate. I'm sure he'll have a few things to say about Mackinlay. I think support for Mackinlay could collapse now he's been charged. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago
Barbados |
"The South Thanet Conservative MP Craig McKinnley has been charged by police with election fraud at the 2015 general election. Nigel Farage can hold his head high knowing he was the real winner of that seat in the 2015 general election.
The big question is how many of South Thanet's Tories will still vote for McKinnley even though they know he is awaiting trial for electoral fraud?
Nigel Farage is making a speech in South Thanet today backing the ukip candidate. I'm sure he'll have a few things to say about Mackinlay. I think support for Mackinlay could collapse now he's been charged. "
It would be quite funny if Farage still lost it after that. I think he might finally conclude the world is trying to tell him something.
-Matt |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Nigel Farage is making a speech in South Thanet today backing the ukip candidate. I'm sure he'll have a few things to say about Mackinlay. I think support for Mackinlay could collapse now he's been charged. "
I hope your right, I have no time for UKIPs xenophobic and insular politics but I would much rather see them win than MacKinlay get a single vote. But unfortunately I thing we will find that many thousands will still vote for the man. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Should we privatise education and children's services.
To achieve what? What's wrong with the current mix? Efficiency and greater investment. Creating employees that are required.Reducing costs for looked after children.
To reduce childcare costs you simply need to change the legislation that limits the ratio of carers to children so severely. Our standards are far stricter than europe and it's not like all their kids die from accidents.
Private schools are more efficent because they are relatively small organisations giving the CEO / Headmaster very close contact with their customers and employees. But most charge somewhere in the region of £15k a year whilst state schools get around £4,500 per pupil. So the question is whether a private school could create a more efficient service for £4,500? I think they could by stripping out the sports and arts facilities. The private school i went to had 11 rugby pitches. The state school i went to had 2. We had our own theatre, gym, 2 swimming pools. The state school did not. These actually account for the bulk of the difference between the £4.5k and £15k. But then there's the issue of how you'd make it work in practice. Put it this way, as long as there's a government minister for education you can guarantee inefficiency. So if you kept that role but privatise schools you won't get any efficiency savings.
Not really sure what you meant by greater investment sorry.
The largest cost in a school is staffing. Private schools need to charge high fees to generate the income to sustain small class sizes. It's not rocket science"
There's also no evidence smaller class sizes are essential for better education |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There's also no evidence smaller class sizes are essential for better education "
That's not so is it?
Children who receive private (normally 1 to 1) tuition preform much better in exams than children of the same ability who don't.
Children who are taught in classes with a smaller teacher pupil ratio preform better in exams than children of the same ability who learn in classes with significantly higher ratios.
The uncomfortable truth is the reason that privately educated children do so much better than state educated children is because the teacher pupil ratio in private schools varies between 1 to 1 and maybe as much as 15/16 to 1. Whereas in state schools 30 to one is standard with 40 to 1 not being unheard of. Of course lack of texts and equipment in state schools does not help matters. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There's also no evidence smaller class sizes are essential for better education
That's not so is it?
Children who receive private (normally 1 to 1) tuition preform much better in exams than children of the same ability who don't.
Children who are taught in classes with a smaller teacher pupil ratio preform better in exams than children of the same ability who learn in classes with significantly higher ratios.
The uncomfortable truth is the reason that privately educated children do so much better than state educated children is because the teacher pupil ratio in private schools varies between 1 to 1 and maybe as much as 15/16 to 1. Whereas in state schools 30 to one is standard with 40 to 1 not being unheard of. Of course lack of texts and equipment in state schools does not help matters."
Simply not true. The BBC ran a documentary with a school in hampshire where they increased class sizes by changed teaching methods and results improved. It was even done against a control group.
It's only because britain has a doctrine, which again is unscientific, that "pupil centered learning" is best. Pupil centered learning requires smaller class sizes, bit again there's no evidence it delivers better results. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Should we privatise education and children's services.
To achieve what? What's wrong with the current mix? Efficiency and greater investment. Creating employees that are required.Reducing costs for looked after children.
To reduce childcare costs you simply need to change the legislation that limits the ratio of carers to children so severely. Our standards are far stricter than europe and it's not like all their kids die from accidents.
Private schools are more efficent because they are relatively small organisations giving the CEO / Headmaster very close contact with their customers and employees. But most charge somewhere in the region of £15k a year whilst state schools get around £4,500 per pupil. So the question is whether a private school could create a more efficient service for £4,500? I think they could by stripping out the sports and arts facilities. The private school i went to had 11 rugby pitches. The state school i went to had 2. We had our own theatre, gym, 2 swimming pools. The state school did not. These actually account for the bulk of the difference between the £4.5k and £15k. But then there's the issue of how you'd make it work in practice. Put it this way, as long as there's a government minister for education you can guarantee inefficiency. So if you kept that role but privatise schools you won't get any efficiency savings.
Not really sure what you meant by greater investment sorry.
The largest cost in a school is staffing. Private schools need to charge high fees to generate the income to sustain small class sizes. It's not rocket science"
From what i understand, the average £4,500 per year state schools gets covers the maintenance but not capital costs of their buildings. This means the £4,500 is an understatement compared to the £15k which includes everything: www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/teacher-network/2016/jun/19/beginners-guide-planning-managing-school-budgets |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Simply not true. The BBC ran a documentary with a school in hampshire where they increased class sizes by changed teaching methods and results improved. It was even done against a control group.
"
Ever hear the saying: Lies, dam lies and statistics?
If what you say is true why is there a perennial outcry about how privatly educated children are some two and a half times more likely to get into and then qualify with an upper (2/1, 1/1) first degree from a Russell Group university than a state educated child? And if you remove grammar school pupils from the state numbers it goes up to 6 times more likely? Why is it also that children who receive private coaching are some 10 times more likely to gain a place in a grammar school than those who don't?
The simple fact is regardless of ability private education is better than state education if you judge outcomes by a like for like measured on ability. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So OP, are you going to vote for a bunch of fraudsters?
Bunch of fraudsters? How do you equate 1 person in 1 seat to being a 'bunch'?
I'll take that as a yes then!
I take it you will stillvote forparties that had members caught up in the expense scandal, any other group that would be fraud
If you're not cheating, you're not trying. What is it with British people and the obsession over rules? When did we become so... German? "
so you approve of sports men and women cheating too? Using illegal substances to win? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Simply not true. The BBC ran a documentary with a school in hampshire where they increased class sizes by changed teaching methods and results improved. It was even done against a control group.
Ever hear the saying: Lies, dam lies and statistics?
If what you say is true why is there a perennial outcry about how privatly educated children are some two and a half times more likely to get into and then qualify with an upper (2/1, 1/1) first degree from a Russell Group university than a state educated child? And if you remove grammar school pupils from the state numbers it goes up to 6 times more likely? Why is it also that children who receive private coaching are some 10 times more likely to gain a place in a grammar school than those who don't?
The simple fact is regardless of ability private education is better than state education if you judge outcomes by a like for like measured on ability."
Firstly i work in statistics, the only people who believe they can be manipulated into anything are people that don't understand them.
You're assuming the only reason or even main reason private schools out perform state schools are class sizes! Pure fantasy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So OP, are you going to vote for a bunch of fraudsters?
Bunch of fraudsters? How do you equate 1 person in 1 seat to being a 'bunch'?
I'll take that as a yes then!
I take it you will stillvote forparties that had members caught up in the expense scandal, any other group that would be fraud
If you're not cheating, you're not trying. What is it with British people and the obsession over rules? When did we become so... German? so you approve of sports men and women cheating too? Using illegal substances to win?"
Absolutely. Anyone who watches the olmypics and thinks more than 10% of the gold medalists are clean of drugs is a fool. You only need a very basic understanding of steroids and how they work to understand that when 4th place got caught taking PEDs then 1, 2 and 3 were not clean, they just didn't get caught. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So OP, are you going to vote for a bunch of fraudsters?
Bunch of fraudsters? How do you equate 1 person in 1 seat to being a 'bunch'?
I'll take that as a yes then!
I take it you will stillvote forparties that had members caught up in the expense scandal, any other group that would be fraud
Both the Tories and UKIP have got form for it, and the OP is daft enough to vote for both of them! I presume he must be one of those voters taken in by the extra money that has been spent, if the aforementioned played by the rules, the OP might be a lib dem or Labour voter.
Labour are biggest frausters going! Effectively they buy votes by using the state to employ people in jobs that don't need doing because they know full well those people will probably join a trade union and vote for them. Then they create an untermensch that is entirely dependent on welfare, because those people will also vote for them.
When they know they are going to lose an election they ramp up tax, spending and benefits in the full knowledge that the incoming government will have to cut them. This then gives labour the narrative it needs to get back into power and start the cycle again.
Then you have the cheek to go after a tory for simply fiddling the books a little. "
..  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So OP, are you going to vote for a bunch of fraudsters?
Bunch of fraudsters? How do you equate 1 person in 1 seat to being a 'bunch'?
I'll take that as a yes then!
I take it you will stillvote forparties that had members caught up in the expense scandal, any other group that would be fraud
If you're not cheating, you're not trying. What is it with British people and the obsession over rules? When did we become so... German? so you approve of sports men and women cheating too? Using illegal substances to win?
Absolutely. Anyone who watches the olmypics and thinks more than 10% of the gold medalists are clean of drugs is a fool. You only need a very basic understanding of steroids and how they work to understand that when 4th place got caught taking PEDs then 1, 2 and 3 were not clean, they just didn't get caught."
very warped view that one and an insult to all sports men and women weak people cheat to win others just put in the work |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So OP, are you going to vote for a bunch of fraudsters?
Bunch of fraudsters? How do you equate 1 person in 1 seat to being a 'bunch'?
I'll take that as a yes then!
I take it you will stillvote forparties that had members caught up in the expense scandal, any other group that would be fraud
If you're not cheating, you're not trying. What is it with British people and the obsession over rules? When did we become so... German? so you approve of sports men and women cheating too? Using illegal substances to win?
Absolutely. Anyone who watches the olmypics and thinks more than 10% of the gold medalists are clean of drugs is a fool. You only need a very basic understanding of steroids and how they work to understand that when 4th place got caught taking PEDs then 1, 2 and 3 were not clean, they just didn't get caught. very warped view that one and an insult to all sports men and women weak people cheat to win others just put in the work "
No its the scientific view. There's little the public hate more than facts.
- everyone has human growth hormone naturally. There's no consenus on how much you should have so they can only test for extremely elevated levels. Ergo you can't get caught taking a moderate amount of HGH.
- many steroids will only show up in your body for 3 days or less after you use them
- there are steroids that don't have any tests yet anyway |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So OP, are you going to vote for a bunch of fraudsters?
Bunch of fraudsters? How do you equate 1 person in 1 seat to being a 'bunch'?
I'll take that as a yes then!
I take it you will stillvote forparties that had members caught up in the expense scandal, any other group that would be fraud
If you're not cheating, you're not trying. What is it with British people and the obsession over rules? When did we become so... German? so you approve of sports men and women cheating too? Using illegal substances to win?
Absolutely. Anyone who watches the olmypics and thinks more than 10% of the gold medalists are clean of drugs is a fool. You only need a very basic understanding of steroids and how they work to understand that when 4th place got caught taking PEDs then 1, 2 and 3 were not clean, they just didn't get caught. very warped view that one and an insult to all sports men and women weak people cheat to win others just put in the work
No its the scientific view. There's little the public hate more than facts.
- everyone has human growth hormone naturally. There's no consenus on how much you should have so they can only test for extremely elevated levels. Ergo you can't get caught taking a moderate amount of HGH.
- many steroids will only show up in your body for 3 days or less after you use them
- there are steroids that don't have any tests yet anyway"
I don't disagree but are you happy with athletes blood doping just to win when other athletes have worked hard ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So OP, are you going to vote for a bunch of fraudsters?
Bunch of fraudsters? How do you equate 1 person in 1 seat to being a 'bunch'?
I'll take that as a yes then!
I take it you will stillvote forparties that had members caught up in the expense scandal, any other group that would be fraud
If you're not cheating, you're not trying. What is it with British people and the obsession over rules? When did we become so... German? so you approve of sports men and women cheating too? Using illegal substances to win?
Absolutely. Anyone who watches the olmypics and thinks more than 10% of the gold medalists are clean of drugs is a fool. You only need a very basic understanding of steroids and how they work to understand that when 4th place got caught taking PEDs then 1, 2 and 3 were not clean, they just didn't get caught. very warped view that one and an insult to all sports men and women weak people cheat to win others just put in the work
No its the scientific view. There's little the public hate more than facts.
- everyone has human growth hormone naturally. There's no consenus on how much you should have so they can only test for extremely elevated levels. Ergo you can't get caught taking a moderate amount of HGH.
- many steroids will only show up in your body for 3 days or less after you use them
- there are steroids that don't have any tests yet anyway I don't disagree but are you happy with athletes blood doping just to win when other athletes have worked hard ?"
You still need to work hard with steroids! The fairest system is to allow them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You're assuming the only reason or even main reason private schools out perform state schools are class sizes! Pure fantasy. "
Actually no I am not assuming anything. I am fully aware about exactly how the private education system works...
I went to Heathfield (Rishworth School Prep) at 7 and Rockwell College from the age of 10 to 15. At which time I went to a state comp.
The only reason I passed my 'O's and 'A's was because of the education I received prior to attending a state school. At 15 I had already covered the vast majority of the curriculum's in all the subjects (bar art) that I took at both 'O' and 'A' level.
Just to give you an example of the differences in education standards, by the time I had completed my first year in Rockwell I could accurately draw freehand a map of Africa, the Indian subcontinent, North and south America showing all the major rivers, mountain ranges and deserts. I learned these skills by having to trace those maps multiple times until I got it right without the need to look at an atlas. Not surprisingly while doing that a lot more information was soaked up. Things like that are just not done in state schools. Of course as well as that the 4 hours a day (6 on Saturday) supervised silent private study also went a long way to giving me a huge advantage compared to a state education. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You're assuming the only reason or even main reason private schools out perform state schools are class sizes! Pure fantasy.
Actually no I am not assuming anything. I am fully aware about exactly how the private education system works...
I went to Heathfield (Rishworth School Prep) at 7 and Rockwell College from the age of 10 to 15. At which time I went to a state comp.
The only reason I passed my 'O's and 'A's was because of the education I received prior to attending a state school. At 15 I had already covered the vast majority of the curriculum's in all the subjects (bar art) that I took at both 'O' and 'A' level.
Just to give you an example of the differences in education standards, by the time I had completed my first year in Rockwell I could accurately draw freehand a map of Africa, the Indian subcontinent, North and south America showing all the major rivers, mountain ranges and deserts. I learned these skills by having to trace those maps multiple times until I got it right without the need to look at an atlas. Not surprisingly while doing that a lot more information was soaked up. Things like that are just not done in state schools. Of course as well as that the 4 hours a day (6 on Saturday) supervised silent private study also went a long way to giving me a huge advantage compared to a state education."
Ok so we've both sampled both systems. I think class sizes are a minor factor. Is that all we disagree on? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Ok so we've both sampled both systems. I think class sizes are a minor factor. Is that all we disagree on? "
Probably...
I don't know about you, but I (and every other student) hated Rockwell when I was there! In fact the first point that the school could be seen on the Dublin road was called 'Misery Cross'! But looking back I will never be able to repay the staff both civilian and priest for the education they beat into me and the discipline they instilled. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Ok so we've both sampj led both systems. I think class sizes are a minor factor. Is that all we disagree on?
Probably...
I don't know about you, but I (and every other student) hated Rockwell when I was there! In fact the first point that the school could be seen on the Dublin road was called 'Misery Cross'! But looking back I will never be able to repay the staff both civilian and priest for the education they beat into me and the discipline they instilled. "
My experience was the other way around. I went state first, learnt absolutely nothing for three years. Spent most lessons perfecting the art of falling asleep with my eyes open. Teachers were too busy trying to control the chavs to worry about pupils who were merely doing civil disobedience. Had terrible grades but it didn't matter because everyone else did too, i was still in top class because the benchmark was so low. Then i went private and got 5 years of learning in 2 years duration. Very painful experience but did the trick. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Then i went private and got 5 years of learning in 2 years duration. Very painful experience but did the trick. "
See private boarding school education works!
To be honest I think every child should have that sort of education or as close to it as possible. Maybe the equivalent of a day boy/girl or Monday through Friday boarding. But there is not the political will to give our population a proper education both because of cost and because an educated population would not let our rulers get away the shit they do! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Apparently Mrs May had decreed that awaiting trial for Election Fraud is not a good enough reason for the Conservative candidate Mr MacKinlay to stand down. Nice to see the leader of the Tories is setting such a low ethical standard across the board.
But then when one is as strong and stable as Mrs May one has to be able to ignore all ethical values in the pursuit of power. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Apparently Mrs May had decreed that awaiting trial for Election Fraud is not a good enough reason for the Conservative candidate Mr MacKinlay to stand down. Nice to see the leader of the Tories is setting such a low ethical standard across the board.
But then when one is as strong and stable as Mrs May one has to be able to ignore all ethical values in the pursuit of power."
Nice to see you believe in innocent until proven guilty |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Nice to see you believe in innocent until proven guilty"
He is charged with electoral fraud! and he is running to become an elected member of our legislature! Anyone with any ethical compass would be withdrawing from the election and any leader of any party with the slightest shred of moral fibre and ethical values would be withdrawing all support for the man if he did not have the decency to fall on his own sword. That Mrs May would actually defend anyone standing for high public office while under indictment for using fraudulent means to gain that office at a previous election beggars belief! That you think he should be entitled to continue to stand because he deserves the benefit of the doubt until trial is just as questionable. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Nice to see you believe in innocent until proven guilty
He is charged with electoral fraud! and he is running to become an elected member of our legislature! Anyone with any ethical compass would be withdrawing from the election and any leader of any party with the slightest shred of moral fibre and ethical values would be withdrawing all support for the man if he did not have the decency to fall on his own sword. That Mrs May would actually defend anyone standing for high public office while under indictment for using fraudulent means to gain that office at a previous election beggars belief! That you think he should be entitled to continue to stand because he deserves the benefit of the doubt until trial is just as questionable."
Would you put your life and career on hold if someone made a false allegation against you? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ercuryMan
over a year ago
Grantham |
"Apparently Mrs May had decreed that awaiting trial for Election Fraud is not a good enough reason for the Conservative candidate Mr MacKinlay to stand down. Nice to see the leader of the Tories is setting such a low ethical standard across the board.
But then when one is as strong and stable as Mrs May one has to be able to ignore all ethical values in the pursuit of power."
To be entirely correct, he has been charged and is due before a magistrate's court, where, after submissions, they will decide whether to deal with the matter themselves, or send the case to Crown Court where he will stand trial.
As it stands, he is not waiting trial. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Nice to see you believe in innocent until proven guilty
He is charged with electoral fraud! and he is running to become an elected member of our legislature! Anyone with any ethical compass would be withdrawing from the election and any leader of any party with the slightest shred of moral fibre and ethical values would be withdrawing all support for the man if he did not have the decency to fall on his own sword. That Mrs May would actually defend anyone standing for high public office while under indictment for using fraudulent means to gain that office at a previous election beggars belief! That you think he should be entitled to continue to stand because he deserves the benefit of the doubt until trial is just as questionable."
sorry..
but totally disagree with you, he is until proven by due process an innocent man..
same as you or i regardless of his politics..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Look how much the voters gave a fuck about this...
If he's found guilty there will have to be a by-election
Not true! Nothing stops you being an mp with a criminal record"
His position will be untenable if he's found guilty. A By election is inevitable if he's found guilty. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Look how much the voters gave a fuck about this...
If he's found guilty there will have to be a by-election
Not true! Nothing stops you being an mp with a criminal record
His position will be untenable if he's found guilty. A By election is inevitable if he's found guilty. "
I think the conservatives have learnt their lesson about unecessary elections |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Look how much the voters gave a fuck about this...
If he's found guilty there will have to be a by-election
Not true! Nothing stops you being an mp with a criminal record
Doh!"
That's a good Homer Simpson impression but do you actually have anything constructive to add to the thread? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Look how much the voters gave a fuck about this...
If he's found guilty there will have to be a by-election
Not true! Nothing stops you being an mp with a criminal record
Doh!
That's a good Homer Simpson impression but do you actually have anything constructive to add to the thread? "
Yes, how do you square your hero worship of Nige and
"The South Thanet Conservative MP Craig McKinnley has been charged by police with election fraud at the 2015 general election. Nigel Farage can hold his head high knowing he was the real winner of that seat in the 2015 general election."
with your abandonment of ukip and turning tory? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Look how much the voters gave a fuck about this...
If he's found guilty there will have to be a by-election
Not true! Nothing stops you being an mp with a criminal record
Doh!
That's a good Homer Simpson impression but do you actually have anything constructive to add to the thread?
Yes, how do you square your hero worship of Nige and
The South Thanet Conservative MP Craig McKinnley has been charged by police with election fraud at the 2015 general election. Nigel Farage can hold his head high knowing he was the real winner of that seat in the 2015 general election.
with your abandonment of ukip and turning tory?"
Nigel Farage wasn't standing in this election. Ukip served it's purpose to get the EU referendum and the Brexit vote. This election was always going to be difficult for Ukip and as you can see from the results the Ukip vote has gone to Conservative and Labour. I chose Conservative, and other ukippers chose Labour (fuck knows why when people like you have been calling them racist for the last 10 years, you are happy to take their votes tonight for Labour though aren't you). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Nigel Farage wasn't standing in this election. Ukip served it's purpose to get the EU referendum and the Brexit vote. This election was always going to be difficult for Ukip and as you can see from the results the Ukip vote has gone to Conservative and Labour. I chose Conservative, and other ukippers chose Labour (fuck knows why when people like you have been calling them racist for the last 10 years, you are happy to take their votes tonight for Labour though aren't you)."
People like me? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
I miss him 
