Vice chairman of UKIP Watford, Phil Cox, named as party's mayoral candidate

Phil Cox unveiled as UKIP's mayoral candidate

Phil Cox unveiled as UKIP's mayoral candidate

First published in News
Last updated
Watford Observer: Photograph of the Author by , Chief Reporter

The UK Independence Party is due to make its maiden venture into Watford mayoral politics after selecting a candidate to challenge in the May elections.

The party’s Watford branch has chosen its vice chairman, Phil Cox, to stand against Mayor Dorothy Thornhill, who is seeking a fourth term in office.

The IT business man, who lives in central Watford, said he was prompted to stand as he was not happy with the way Watford Borough Council was being run.

He also cited the mayor’s handling of the health campus and plans to build on the Farm Terrace Allotments as motivations behind his decision to stand.

Mr Cox, 53, said: "I felt I was well placed to put myself forward in terms of skills. I am also not happy with the way the council is being run at the moment and feel it could be run better.

"I don’t think it is very representative of the people of Watford. It is a council that tends to tell people what to do rather than doing things for you.

"I am also very unhappy with the current mayor, Dorothy Thornhill. More evidence seems to be emerging that she has not been entirely straight with the electorate over the Farm Terrace Allotments and the health campus."

Comments (269)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:31pm Fri 31 Jan 14

garston tony says...

I'm actually pretty sure Mr Cox is sincere in his beliefs about UKIP and how they will be a breath of fresh air in politics, but should he become Mayor I dont think it'll take long for those beliefs to come crashing down and whilst he may try to prevail UKIP will be shown to be like any other political party out there.

Good luck to you however, I might just vote for you as pretty much anything is better than Dotty
I'm actually pretty sure Mr Cox is sincere in his beliefs about UKIP and how they will be a breath of fresh air in politics, but should he become Mayor I dont think it'll take long for those beliefs to come crashing down and whilst he may try to prevail UKIP will be shown to be like any other political party out there. Good luck to you however, I might just vote for you as pretty much anything is better than Dotty garston tony
  • Score: 8

12:38pm Fri 31 Jan 14

EU_OUT_NOW says...

Go Phil... Your the man!.... Vote UKIP. Vote Phil Cox for Mayor.
Go Phil... Your the man!.... Vote UKIP. Vote Phil Cox for Mayor. EU_OUT_NOW
  • Score: 8

12:43pm Fri 31 Jan 14

Watford4eva says...

Finally up the ukip
Finally up the ukip Watford4eva
  • Score: 8

1:15pm Fri 31 Jan 14

Jane EC says...

I've known Phil for over 30 years, and Watford will be lucky if they get such a genuine, common sense person as their mayor. Too many politicians are in the business to further their own political ambitions, and say what they think the electorate want to hear so they get elected, then do their own thing. Phil will work for the people, and with honesty and integrity - which is what a mayor (or indeed any politician) should do. I wish him all the best.
I've known Phil for over 30 years, and Watford will be lucky if they get such a genuine, common sense person as their mayor. Too many politicians are in the business to further their own political ambitions, and say what they think the electorate want to hear so they get elected, then do their own thing. Phil will work for the people, and with honesty and integrity - which is what a mayor (or indeed any politician) should do. I wish him all the best. Jane EC
  • Score: 19

1:17pm Fri 31 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

garston tony wrote:
I'm actually pretty sure Mr Cox is sincere in his beliefs about UKIP and how they will be a breath of fresh air in politics, but should he become Mayor I dont think it'll take long for those beliefs to come crashing down and whilst he may try to prevail UKIP will be shown to be like any other political party out there.

Good luck to you however, I might just vote for you as pretty much anything is better than Dotty
Blow me down with a feather!

Tony, you don't know how much that means to me to get your backing. I'm actually overwhelmed!


Thank you.
[quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: I'm actually pretty sure Mr Cox is sincere in his beliefs about UKIP and how they will be a breath of fresh air in politics, but should he become Mayor I dont think it'll take long for those beliefs to come crashing down and whilst he may try to prevail UKIP will be shown to be like any other political party out there. Good luck to you however, I might just vote for you as pretty much anything is better than Dotty[/p][/quote]Blow me down with a feather! Tony, you don't know how much that means to me to get your backing. I'm actually overwhelmed! Thank you. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: 10

1:50pm Fri 31 Jan 14

Harry's Bar says...

As a mayoral candidate is it appropriate to be posting political views on a non political forum?
As a mayoral candidate is it appropriate to be posting political views on a non political forum? Harry's Bar
  • Score: -9

2:22pm Fri 31 Jan 14

D_Penn says...

Harry's Bar wrote:
As a mayoral candidate is it appropriate to be posting political views on a non political forum?
It's relevant to the political article.
[quote][p][bold]Harry's Bar[/bold] wrote: As a mayoral candidate is it appropriate to be posting political views on a non political forum?[/p][/quote]It's relevant to the political article. D_Penn
  • Score: 6

2:34pm Fri 31 Jan 14

gusgreen says...

Good on you Phil,at last an opportunity to have a mayor who will act on what the people want, rather than the self spinning,misleading,
untruthful bunch of individuals who are in local politics to get what they can for themselves!

Good Luck
Good on you Phil,at last an opportunity to have a mayor who will act on what the people want, rather than the self spinning,misleading, untruthful bunch of individuals who are in local politics to get what they can for themselves! Good Luck gusgreen
  • Score: 8

2:36pm Fri 31 Jan 14

EU_OUT_NOW says...

Harry's Bar wrote:
As a mayoral candidate is it appropriate to be posting political views on a non political forum?
Did you miss the headline???

"Vice chairman of UKIP Watford, Phil Cox, unveiled as party's mayoral candidate"

Point made I think.
[quote][p][bold]Harry's Bar[/bold] wrote: As a mayoral candidate is it appropriate to be posting political views on a non political forum?[/p][/quote]Did you miss the headline??? "Vice chairman of UKIP Watford, Phil Cox, unveiled as party's mayoral candidate" Point made I think. EU_OUT_NOW
  • Score: 1

2:39pm Fri 31 Jan 14

dontknowynot says...

D_Penn wrote:
Harry's Bar wrote:
As a mayoral candidate is it appropriate to be posting political views on a non political forum?
It's relevant to the political article.
yes and no
Ie if you are concerned with the hospital fine but (and it is entirely up to you) if you rattle on about this or that UKIP meting it does come across as a sort of political spam thing (with my analytic hat on)
Also with my analytic hat on I think you are going to find out just how nasty the Libdems can be, and just how in bedded they are here
[quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harry's Bar[/bold] wrote: As a mayoral candidate is it appropriate to be posting political views on a non political forum?[/p][/quote]It's relevant to the political article.[/p][/quote]yes and no Ie if you are concerned with the hospital fine but (and it is entirely up to you) if you rattle on about this or that UKIP meting it does come across as a sort of political spam thing (with my analytic hat on) Also with my analytic hat on I think you are going to find out just how nasty the Libdems can be, and just how in bedded they are here dontknowynot
  • Score: 8

2:48pm Fri 31 Jan 14

EU_OUT_NOW says...

dontknowynot wrote:
D_Penn wrote:
Harry's Bar wrote:
As a mayoral candidate is it appropriate to be posting political views on a non political forum?
It's relevant to the political article.
yes and no
Ie if you are concerned with the hospital fine but (and it is entirely up to you) if you rattle on about this or that UKIP meting it does come across as a sort of political spam thing (with my analytic hat on)
Also with my analytic hat on I think you are going to find out just how nasty the Libdems can be, and just how in bedded they are here
You are sheer magic..):):):) You would challenge whether Australia is at the top or bottom of the globe.
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harry's Bar[/bold] wrote: As a mayoral candidate is it appropriate to be posting political views on a non political forum?[/p][/quote]It's relevant to the political article.[/p][/quote]yes and no Ie if you are concerned with the hospital fine but (and it is entirely up to you) if you rattle on about this or that UKIP meting it does come across as a sort of political spam thing (with my analytic hat on) Also with my analytic hat on I think you are going to find out just how nasty the Libdems can be, and just how in bedded they are here[/p][/quote]You are sheer magic..):):):) You would challenge whether Australia is at the top or bottom of the globe. EU_OUT_NOW
  • Score: -2

2:51pm Fri 31 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

Harry's Bar wrote:
As a mayoral candidate is it appropriate to be posting political views on a non political forum?
Can you suggest why it would not be appropriate?

The WO is about local issues and local issues are often affected by or controlled by politicians. I would have thought it was the ideal place.

Many elected councilors post their opinions onto the WO website, often apparently under false names. I am posting under my real name.

I think the positive is that it will tell people where I stand on issues when they come to vote in May.

I want to be a transparent Mayor. I want people to know where they stand with myself and UKIP locally. What better way than the pages of the WO?

We don't have the resources of the LibDems and Tories to drop a leaflet through every door showing us gazing into potholes and trying to look relevant. I suspect many people will be grateful for that one small mercy!
[quote][p][bold]Harry's Bar[/bold] wrote: As a mayoral candidate is it appropriate to be posting political views on a non political forum?[/p][/quote]Can you suggest why it would not be appropriate? The WO is about local issues and local issues are often affected by or controlled by politicians. I would have thought it was the ideal place. Many elected councilors post their opinions onto the WO website, often apparently under false names. I am posting under my real name. I think the positive is that it will tell people where I stand on issues when they come to vote in May. I want to be a transparent Mayor. I want people to know where they stand with myself and UKIP locally. What better way than the pages of the WO? We don't have the resources of the LibDems and Tories to drop a leaflet through every door showing us gazing into potholes and trying to look relevant. I suspect many people will be grateful for that one small mercy! Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: 1

2:53pm Fri 31 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

gusgreen wrote:
Good on you Phil,at last an opportunity to have a mayor who will act on what the people want, rather than the self spinning,misleading,

untruthful bunch of individuals who are in local politics to get what they can for themselves!

Good Luck
Thank you most kindly, Gus.

Now I'll just wait for the other three parties to read your comment and collectively vote it down.
[quote][p][bold]gusgreen[/bold] wrote: Good on you Phil,at last an opportunity to have a mayor who will act on what the people want, rather than the self spinning,misleading, untruthful bunch of individuals who are in local politics to get what they can for themselves! Good Luck[/p][/quote]Thank you most kindly, Gus. Now I'll just wait for the other three parties to read your comment and collectively vote it down. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: -5

2:54pm Fri 31 Jan 14

D_Penn says...

@dontknowynot

"Also with my analytic hat on I think you are going to find out just how nasty the Libdems can be, and just how in bedded they are here"

I think we can all agree that they have had too much power for too long. They spend far too much money on pet projects and have a mania about building evermore flats in a town that has some of the densest populated wards in Hertfordshire.

At national level, their leaders have proved far from honest in their dealings with the electorate and locally, on the hospital campus row, we are seeing the same symptoms. The party has lost its credibility and I am optimistic that the voters have woken up to their failures and will spell out their feelings in a clear message on May 22nd.
@dontknowynot "Also with my analytic hat on I think you are going to find out just how nasty the Libdems can be, and just how in bedded they are here" I think we can all agree that they have had too much power for too long. They spend far too much money on pet projects and have a mania about building evermore flats in a town that has some of the densest populated wards in Hertfordshire. At national level, their leaders have proved far from honest in their dealings with the electorate and locally, on the hospital campus row, we are seeing the same symptoms. The party has lost its credibility and I am optimistic that the voters have woken up to their failures and will spell out their feelings in a clear message on May 22nd. D_Penn
  • Score: 4

2:58pm Fri 31 Jan 14

garston tony says...

Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
garston tony wrote: I'm actually pretty sure Mr Cox is sincere in his beliefs about UKIP and how they will be a breath of fresh air in politics, but should he become Mayor I dont think it'll take long for those beliefs to come crashing down and whilst he may try to prevail UKIP will be shown to be like any other political party out there. Good luck to you however, I might just vote for you as pretty much anything is better than Dotty
Blow me down with a feather! Tony, you don't know how much that means to me to get your backing. I'm actually overwhelmed! Thank you.
Dont thank me, I think if you were to win no matter how sincere you are at wanting to be better than the rest you'll eventually get dragged down to their level.

Thats not an attack on you personally, just a realistic comment on politics in general and living with the reality instead of idealistic theory. UKIP is no different to any other party in many ways
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: I'm actually pretty sure Mr Cox is sincere in his beliefs about UKIP and how they will be a breath of fresh air in politics, but should he become Mayor I dont think it'll take long for those beliefs to come crashing down and whilst he may try to prevail UKIP will be shown to be like any other political party out there. Good luck to you however, I might just vote for you as pretty much anything is better than Dotty[/p][/quote]Blow me down with a feather! Tony, you don't know how much that means to me to get your backing. I'm actually overwhelmed! Thank you.[/p][/quote]Dont thank me, I think if you were to win no matter how sincere you are at wanting to be better than the rest you'll eventually get dragged down to their level. Thats not an attack on you personally, just a realistic comment on politics in general and living with the reality instead of idealistic theory. UKIP is no different to any other party in many ways garston tony
  • Score: 4

3:03pm Fri 31 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

dontknowynot wrote:
D_Penn wrote:
Harry's Bar wrote:
As a mayoral candidate is it appropriate to be posting political views on a non political forum?
It's relevant to the political article.
yes and no
Ie if you are concerned with the hospital fine but (and it is entirely up to you) if you rattle on about this or that UKIP meting it does come across as a sort of political spam thing (with my analytic hat on)
Also with my analytic hat on I think you are going to find out just how nasty the Libdems can be, and just how in bedded they are here
Thanks for the warning DKYN.

At the end of the day I think our UKIP message is better than their LibDem message, and their actions of late have also very much let them down.

Just as their national party is unravelling, so are their actions in Watford also unravelling as regards the "Health Campus" which is apparently devoid of health but full of housing. I doubt Pickles would have signed off the destruction of protected allotments for housing.

We have said that if we are elected we will investigate this thoroughly and openly. At the same time, we will do our utmost to save the allotments unless it is too late.
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harry's Bar[/bold] wrote: As a mayoral candidate is it appropriate to be posting political views on a non political forum?[/p][/quote]It's relevant to the political article.[/p][/quote]yes and no Ie if you are concerned with the hospital fine but (and it is entirely up to you) if you rattle on about this or that UKIP meting it does come across as a sort of political spam thing (with my analytic hat on) Also with my analytic hat on I think you are going to find out just how nasty the Libdems can be, and just how in bedded they are here[/p][/quote]Thanks for the warning DKYN. At the end of the day I think our UKIP message is better than their LibDem message, and their actions of late have also very much let them down. Just as their national party is unravelling, so are their actions in Watford also unravelling as regards the "Health Campus" which is apparently devoid of health but full of housing. I doubt Pickles would have signed off the destruction of protected allotments for housing. We have said that if we are elected we will investigate this thoroughly and openly. At the same time, we will do our utmost to save the allotments unless it is too late. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: -3

3:05pm Fri 31 Jan 14

not a regular says...

I don't agree with all of Phil's or UKIP's policies but what I do like about him (from what I've seen on here) is that at least there is always a rational, thought out, logical explanation for his beliefs and actions.

Clearly has confidence in his own convictions and willing to give a direct response to a criticism rather than doing what most politicians do - i.e. take a brown envelope, avoid the question or outright lie.

Best of luck Phil, I don't think political allegiance means a great deal on a local level and personality, honesty and treating the electorate as adults will go a long way.
I don't agree with all of Phil's or UKIP's policies but what I do like about him (from what I've seen on here) is that at least there is always a rational, thought out, logical explanation for his beliefs and actions. Clearly has confidence in his own convictions and willing to give a direct response to a criticism rather than doing what most politicians do - i.e. take a brown envelope, avoid the question or outright lie. Best of luck Phil, I don't think political allegiance means a great deal on a local level and personality, honesty and treating the electorate as adults will go a long way. not a regular
  • Score: 7

3:17pm Fri 31 Jan 14

D_Penn says...

garston tony wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
garston tony wrote: I'm actually pretty sure Mr Cox is sincere in his beliefs about UKIP and how they will be a breath of fresh air in politics, but should he become Mayor I dont think it'll take long for those beliefs to come crashing down and whilst he may try to prevail UKIP will be shown to be like any other political party out there. Good luck to you however, I might just vote for you as pretty much anything is better than Dotty
Blow me down with a feather! Tony, you don't know how much that means to me to get your backing. I'm actually overwhelmed! Thank you.
Dont thank me, I think if you were to win no matter how sincere you are at wanting to be better than the rest you'll eventually get dragged down to their level. Thats not an attack on you personally, just a realistic comment on politics in general and living with the reality instead of idealistic theory. UKIP is no different to any other party in many ways
@Garston Tony

"Dont thank me, I think if you were to win no matter how sincere you are at wanting to be better than the rest you'll eventually get dragged down to their level.

Thats not an attack on you personally, just a realistic comment on politics in general and living with the reality instead of idealistic theory. UKIP is no different to any other party in many ways"


I'd have to disagree with you on this.

The people I have met in UKIP come from all corners of the political spectrum. Many have never involved themselves in active politics in their lives. What binds us all together is not some political ideology, but a belief that politics has lost its way and that the self-serving careerists that have been running the country into the ground whilst making themselves rich in the process just has to be stopped.

In the last few years so many honourable, hard working and pragmatic people have poured into UKIP that it really is completely different to the stagnant old parties who have run out of ideas, given up and sat back while the EU now effectively calls the shots. We are up for the fight to get Britain back on its feet and put us back in charge of our own future. That is the message that so many people have waited so long to hear and is why UKIP is growing bigger every day despite attempts by sections of the media wedded to the old parties doing their utmost to stop us. They won't succeed and we will.
[quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: I'm actually pretty sure Mr Cox is sincere in his beliefs about UKIP and how they will be a breath of fresh air in politics, but should he become Mayor I dont think it'll take long for those beliefs to come crashing down and whilst he may try to prevail UKIP will be shown to be like any other political party out there. Good luck to you however, I might just vote for you as pretty much anything is better than Dotty[/p][/quote]Blow me down with a feather! Tony, you don't know how much that means to me to get your backing. I'm actually overwhelmed! Thank you.[/p][/quote]Dont thank me, I think if you were to win no matter how sincere you are at wanting to be better than the rest you'll eventually get dragged down to their level. Thats not an attack on you personally, just a realistic comment on politics in general and living with the reality instead of idealistic theory. UKIP is no different to any other party in many ways[/p][/quote]@Garston Tony "Dont thank me, I think if you were to win no matter how sincere you are at wanting to be better than the rest you'll eventually get dragged down to their level. Thats not an attack on you personally, just a realistic comment on politics in general and living with the reality instead of idealistic theory. UKIP is no different to any other party in many ways" I'd have to disagree with you on this. The people I have met in UKIP come from all corners of the political spectrum. Many have never involved themselves in active politics in their lives. What binds us all together is not some political ideology, but a belief that politics has lost its way and that the self-serving careerists that have been running the country into the ground whilst making themselves rich in the process just has to be stopped. In the last few years so many honourable, hard working and pragmatic people have poured into UKIP that it really is completely different to the stagnant old parties who have run out of ideas, given up and sat back while the EU now effectively calls the shots. We are up for the fight to get Britain back on its feet and put us back in charge of our own future. That is the message that so many people have waited so long to hear and is why UKIP is growing bigger every day despite attempts by sections of the media wedded to the old parties doing their utmost to stop us. They won't succeed and we will. D_Penn
  • Score: 1

3:18pm Fri 31 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

garston tony wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
garston tony wrote: I'm actually pretty sure Mr Cox is sincere in his beliefs about UKIP and how they will be a breath of fresh air in politics, but should he become Mayor I dont think it'll take long for those beliefs to come crashing down and whilst he may try to prevail UKIP will be shown to be like any other political party out there. Good luck to you however, I might just vote for you as pretty much anything is better than Dotty
Blow me down with a feather! Tony, you don't know how much that means to me to get your backing. I'm actually overwhelmed! Thank you.
Dont thank me, I think if you were to win no matter how sincere you are at wanting to be better than the rest you'll eventually get dragged down to their level.

Thats not an attack on you personally, just a realistic comment on politics in general and living with the reality instead of idealistic theory. UKIP is no different to any other party in many ways
I joined UKIP because it's different.

I'm standing for UKIP because I'm different.

If I don't act differently when elected then there's no point me being there.

That's my motivation, I want a better Watford, I want a better Watford council.

Do you know the truly great thing about UKIP at council level? We can do what we want. There is no UKIP whip. We do not have to follow UKIP policies. We are encouraged to do what is right for the people and the town. That suits me down to the ground.

Now I'll let you into a little secret. That's what I would have done anyway. I'm independent minded and I want what is best for the town.

If I haven't had the fight knocked out of me after 53 years, surely I can keep going for another few as Mayor?

Nil illegitimi carborandum as someone once told me. Watch this space!
[quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: I'm actually pretty sure Mr Cox is sincere in his beliefs about UKIP and how they will be a breath of fresh air in politics, but should he become Mayor I dont think it'll take long for those beliefs to come crashing down and whilst he may try to prevail UKIP will be shown to be like any other political party out there. Good luck to you however, I might just vote for you as pretty much anything is better than Dotty[/p][/quote]Blow me down with a feather! Tony, you don't know how much that means to me to get your backing. I'm actually overwhelmed! Thank you.[/p][/quote]Dont thank me, I think if you were to win no matter how sincere you are at wanting to be better than the rest you'll eventually get dragged down to their level. Thats not an attack on you personally, just a realistic comment on politics in general and living with the reality instead of idealistic theory. UKIP is no different to any other party in many ways[/p][/quote]I joined UKIP because it's different. I'm standing for UKIP because I'm different. If I don't act differently when elected then there's no point me being there. That's my motivation, I want a better Watford, I want a better Watford council. Do you know the truly great thing about UKIP at council level? We can do what we want. There is no UKIP whip. We do not have to follow UKIP policies. We are encouraged to do what is right for the people and the town. That suits me down to the ground. Now I'll let you into a little secret. That's what I would have done anyway. I'm independent minded and I want what is best for the town. If I haven't had the fight knocked out of me after 53 years, surely I can keep going for another few as Mayor? Nil illegitimi carborandum as someone once told me. Watch this space! Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: 2

3:27pm Fri 31 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

not a regular wrote:
I don't agree with all of Phil's or UKIP's policies but what I do like about him (from what I've seen on here) is that at least there is always a rational, thought out, logical explanation for his beliefs and actions.

Clearly has confidence in his own convictions and willing to give a direct response to a criticism rather than doing what most politicians do - i.e. take a brown envelope, avoid the question or outright lie.

Best of luck Phil, I don't think political allegiance means a great deal on a local level and personality, honesty and treating the electorate as adults will go a long way.
Cheers, it's good to have your support.
[quote][p][bold]not a regular[/bold] wrote: I don't agree with all of Phil's or UKIP's policies but what I do like about him (from what I've seen on here) is that at least there is always a rational, thought out, logical explanation for his beliefs and actions. Clearly has confidence in his own convictions and willing to give a direct response to a criticism rather than doing what most politicians do - i.e. take a brown envelope, avoid the question or outright lie. Best of luck Phil, I don't think political allegiance means a great deal on a local level and personality, honesty and treating the electorate as adults will go a long way.[/p][/quote]Cheers, it's good to have your support. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: 0

3:45pm Fri 31 Jan 14

garston tony says...

At Phil and DPen, I hope Phil you get the chance to prove me wrong but i'm afraid politics at all levels is populated by countless people in all parties who started off in politics as honest, hard working, pragmatic people (and many of them remain so) who get blocked at every idealistic turn and have to start playing the game to get anything near what they are wanting to achieve
At Phil and DPen, I hope Phil you get the chance to prove me wrong but i'm afraid politics at all levels is populated by countless people in all parties who started off in politics as honest, hard working, pragmatic people (and many of them remain so) who get blocked at every idealistic turn and have to start playing the game to get anything near what they are wanting to achieve garston tony
  • Score: 4

3:58pm Fri 31 Jan 14

D_Penn says...

garston tony wrote:
At Phil and DPen, I hope Phil you get the chance to prove me wrong but i'm afraid politics at all levels is populated by countless people in all parties who started off in politics as honest, hard working, pragmatic people (and many of them remain so) who get blocked at every idealistic turn and have to start playing the game to get anything near what they are wanting to achieve
In 50 years time you might be right. All parties evolve and, as you rightly say, not usually for the better- but that's a long way down the road and for the next generation.

My hope for UKIP right now is that we can remain different for long enough to change the game. If all we achieve is to be instrumental in freeing ourselves from the suffocating, job destroying tentacles of the power hungry and corrupt EU, then all the effort will have been worthwhile.

We don''t yet have a seat in parliament but already we have forced the main parties to address issues that they have spent years sweeping under the carpet. The stronger we get the more they will be forced to stop treating the electorate with contempt.

What we need now is as much the support as we can muster at all levels so that the message keeps getting pounded home. Voting for Phil to be our next Watford Mayor is just one of a myriad of steps that will make change for the better happen.
[quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: At Phil and DPen, I hope Phil you get the chance to prove me wrong but i'm afraid politics at all levels is populated by countless people in all parties who started off in politics as honest, hard working, pragmatic people (and many of them remain so) who get blocked at every idealistic turn and have to start playing the game to get anything near what they are wanting to achieve[/p][/quote]In 50 years time you might be right. All parties evolve and, as you rightly say, not usually for the better- but that's a long way down the road and for the next generation. My hope for UKIP right now is that we can remain different for long enough to change the game. If all we achieve is to be instrumental in freeing ourselves from the suffocating, job destroying tentacles of the power hungry and corrupt EU, then all the effort will have been worthwhile. We don''t yet have a seat in parliament but already we have forced the main parties to address issues that they have spent years sweeping under the carpet. The stronger we get the more they will be forced to stop treating the electorate with contempt. What we need now is as much the support as we can muster at all levels so that the message keeps getting pounded home. Voting for Phil to be our next Watford Mayor is just one of a myriad of steps that will make change for the better happen. D_Penn
  • Score: 1

4:05pm Fri 31 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

garston tony wrote:
At Phil and DPen, I hope Phil you get the chance to prove me wrong but i'm afraid politics at all levels is populated by countless people in all parties who started off in politics as honest, hard working, pragmatic people (and many of them remain so) who get blocked at every idealistic turn and have to start playing the game to get anything near what they are wanting to achieve
Thanks Tony.

I hope I get the chance to prove you wrong too.

I think I will.
[quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: At Phil and DPen, I hope Phil you get the chance to prove me wrong but i'm afraid politics at all levels is populated by countless people in all parties who started off in politics as honest, hard working, pragmatic people (and many of them remain so) who get blocked at every idealistic turn and have to start playing the game to get anything near what they are wanting to achieve[/p][/quote]Thanks Tony. I hope I get the chance to prove you wrong too. I think I will. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: 1

4:14pm Fri 31 Jan 14

Andrew Turpie says...

You never know Phil, I might take a punt on you at the ballot box. To be honest, in the last 15 years I have tried the others, maybe we do need to take a leap of faith. If I do or don't vote for you, respect for sticking your head above the parapet, good luck and thanks for offering people another option.
You never know Phil, I might take a punt on you at the ballot box. To be honest, in the last 15 years I have tried the others, maybe we do need to take a leap of faith. If I do or don't vote for you, respect for sticking your head above the parapet, good luck and thanks for offering people another option. Andrew Turpie
  • Score: 0

4:18pm Fri 31 Jan 14

Boosey says...

If elected, will you take a salary cut which labour are asking for?
If elected, will you take a salary cut which labour are asking for? Boosey
  • Score: 6

4:31pm Fri 31 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

Andrew Turpie wrote:
You never know Phil, I might take a punt on you at the ballot box. To be honest, in the last 15 years I have tried the others, maybe we do need to take a leap of faith. If I do or don't vote for you, respect for sticking your head above the parapet, good luck and thanks for offering people another option.
Thanks Andrew, your sentiments and those of all the other posters on here are most appreciated.
[quote][p][bold]Andrew Turpie[/bold] wrote: You never know Phil, I might take a punt on you at the ballot box. To be honest, in the last 15 years I have tried the others, maybe we do need to take a leap of faith. If I do or don't vote for you, respect for sticking your head above the parapet, good luck and thanks for offering people another option.[/p][/quote]Thanks Andrew, your sentiments and those of all the other posters on here are most appreciated. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: 3

5:01pm Fri 31 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

Boosey wrote:
If elected, will you take a salary cut which labour are asking for?
No.

I think, from what I know, the salary is about right.
[quote][p][bold]Boosey[/bold] wrote: If elected, will you take a salary cut which labour are asking for?[/p][/quote]No. I think, from what I know, the salary is about right. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: 0

6:01pm Fri 31 Jan 14

dontknowynot says...

http://news.sky.com/
story/1204407/eu-in-
out-referendum-bill-
killed-off-by-peers
oh deary me looks like local libdem Sal Brinton might have had a hand in this no referendum in 2017

And after it was all going so well for Nick Lincoln and his friend Sue Greenslade the other year what with her encouraging people to vote UKIP and not Labour if they didn't like the coalition.
http://news.sky.com/ story/1204407/eu-in- out-referendum-bill- killed-off-by-peers oh deary me looks like local libdem Sal Brinton might have had a hand in this no referendum in 2017 And after it was all going so well for Nick Lincoln and his friend Sue Greenslade the other year what with her encouraging people to vote UKIP and not Labour if they didn't like the coalition. dontknowynot
  • Score: 6

6:04pm Fri 31 Jan 14

dontknowynot says...

Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
Boosey wrote:
If elected, will you take a salary cut which labour are asking for?
No.

I think, from what I know, the salary is about right.
so the salary of £65,738 is about right in your opinion.
and anything on the other executive costs?
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Boosey[/bold] wrote: If elected, will you take a salary cut which labour are asking for?[/p][/quote]No. I think, from what I know, the salary is about right.[/p][/quote]so the salary of £65,738 is about right in your opinion. and anything on the other executive costs? dontknowynot
  • Score: 7

6:24pm Fri 31 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

dontknowynot wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
Boosey wrote:
If elected, will you take a salary cut which labour are asking for?
No.

I think, from what I know, the salary is about right.
so the salary of £65,738 is about right in your opinion.
and anything on the other executive costs?
Do you know what they are?
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Boosey[/bold] wrote: If elected, will you take a salary cut which labour are asking for?[/p][/quote]No. I think, from what I know, the salary is about right.[/p][/quote]so the salary of £65,738 is about right in your opinion. and anything on the other executive costs?[/p][/quote]Do you know what they are? Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: -2

6:40pm Fri 31 Jan 14

dontknowynot says...

Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
Boosey wrote:
If elected, will you take a salary cut which labour are asking for?
No.

I think, from what I know, the salary is about right.
so the salary of £65,738 is about right in your opinion.
and anything on the other executive costs?
Do you know what they are?
don't you???

of top of my head no but they did seem rather steep last time I looked
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Boosey[/bold] wrote: If elected, will you take a salary cut which labour are asking for?[/p][/quote]No. I think, from what I know, the salary is about right.[/p][/quote]so the salary of £65,738 is about right in your opinion. and anything on the other executive costs?[/p][/quote]Do you know what they are?[/p][/quote]don't you??? of top of my head no but they did seem rather steep last time I looked dontknowynot
  • Score: 2

6:57pm Fri 31 Jan 14

EU_OUT_NOW says...

Now come on "dontknowynot" try not to be your usual antagonistic self. Phil is a really nice guy and would make a very good Mayor.
Now come on "dontknowynot" try not to be your usual antagonistic self. Phil is a really nice guy and would make a very good Mayor. EU_OUT_NOW
  • Score: 3

7:10pm Fri 31 Jan 14

dontknowynot says...

EU_OUT_NOW wrote:
Now come on "dontknowynot" try not to be your usual antagonistic self. Phil is a really nice guy and would make a very good Mayor.
just trying to gauge his knowledge of something tat has been an issue in watford for a while, hardly antagonistic.

this from Cllr Johnson when he stood for the conservatives as Mayoral candidate
http://www.conservat
ivehome.com/localgov
ernment/2010/03/cons
ervative-candidate-f
or-mayor-of-watford-
pledges-to-halve-sal
ary.html
thats the same cllr who now supports the Mayor as one of her libdem cllrs
[quote][p][bold]EU_OUT_NOW[/bold] wrote: Now come on "dontknowynot" try not to be your usual antagonistic self. Phil is a really nice guy and would make a very good Mayor.[/p][/quote]just trying to gauge his knowledge of something tat has been an issue in watford for a while, hardly antagonistic. this from Cllr Johnson when he stood for the conservatives as Mayoral candidate http://www.conservat ivehome.com/localgov ernment/2010/03/cons ervative-candidate-f or-mayor-of-watford- pledges-to-halve-sal ary.html thats the same cllr who now supports the Mayor as one of her libdem cllrs dontknowynot
  • Score: 4

7:32pm Fri 31 Jan 14

PCllrRRidley says...

If Phil can deliver front line services and save money for Watford Residents then his salary could be reviewed upwards.

Could start at £52k?

Look at the fiasco we have had at TRDC with the WP redevelopment, yet salaries were still increased and cllrs still drew their allowances and residents pay!
If Phil can deliver front line services and save money for Watford Residents then his salary could be reviewed upwards. Could start at £52k? Look at the fiasco we have had at TRDC with the WP redevelopment, yet salaries were still increased and cllrs still drew their allowances and residents pay! PCllrRRidley
  • Score: 2

7:52pm Fri 31 Jan 14

EU_OUT_NOW says...

dontknowynot wrote:
EU_OUT_NOW wrote:
Now come on "dontknowynot" try not to be your usual antagonistic self. Phil is a really nice guy and would make a very good Mayor.
just trying to gauge his knowledge of something tat has been an issue in watford for a while, hardly antagonistic.

this from Cllr Johnson when he stood for the conservatives as Mayoral candidate
http://www.conservat

ivehome.com/localgov

ernment/2010/03/cons

ervative-candidate-f

or-mayor-of-watford-

pledges-to-halve-sal

ary.html
thats the same cllr who now supports the Mayor as one of her libdem cllrs
Very interesting reading, even if it is dated March 24, 2010. How do you find all this information?.... You are like a political encyclopedia. He didn't get the job though despite his unrealistic promises...
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]EU_OUT_NOW[/bold] wrote: Now come on "dontknowynot" try not to be your usual antagonistic self. Phil is a really nice guy and would make a very good Mayor.[/p][/quote]just trying to gauge his knowledge of something tat has been an issue in watford for a while, hardly antagonistic. this from Cllr Johnson when he stood for the conservatives as Mayoral candidate http://www.conservat ivehome.com/localgov ernment/2010/03/cons ervative-candidate-f or-mayor-of-watford- pledges-to-halve-sal ary.html thats the same cllr who now supports the Mayor as one of her libdem cllrs[/p][/quote]Very interesting reading, even if it is dated March 24, 2010. How do you find all this information?.... You are like a political encyclopedia. He didn't get the job though despite his unrealistic promises... EU_OUT_NOW
  • Score: -3

8:06pm Fri 31 Jan 14

EU_OUT_NOW says...

A MESSAGE TO THE MODERATORS. THIS PAGE HAS NOW REACHED TOTAL EYE CANDY OVERLOAD. THERE IS ADVERTISING, THEN THERE IS SHEER WEB DESIGNER STUPIDITY. TONE IT DOWN DO!
A MESSAGE TO THE MODERATORS. THIS PAGE HAS NOW REACHED TOTAL EYE CANDY OVERLOAD. THERE IS ADVERTISING, THEN THERE IS SHEER WEB DESIGNER STUPIDITY. TONE IT DOWN DO! EU_OUT_NOW
  • Score: 0

8:33pm Fri 31 Jan 14

dontknowynot says...

EU_OUT_NOW wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
EU_OUT_NOW wrote:
Now come on "dontknowynot" try not to be your usual antagonistic self. Phil is a really nice guy and would make a very good Mayor.
just trying to gauge his knowledge of something tat has been an issue in watford for a while, hardly antagonistic.

this from Cllr Johnson when he stood for the conservatives as Mayoral candidate
http://www.conservat


ivehome.com/localgov


ernment/2010/03/cons


ervative-candidate-f


or-mayor-of-watford-


pledges-to-halve-sal


ary.html
thats the same cllr who now supports the Mayor as one of her libdem cllrs
Very interesting reading, even if it is dated March 24, 2010. How do you find all this information?.... You are like a political encyclopedia. He didn't get the job though despite his unrealistic promises...
2010 illustrates that it is a longstanding issue no?

As to the encyclopedia comment well I hardly know how to take that or indeed how it was intended.

Unrealistic or not the guy seems to be a total hypocrite and as such well suited to both the Libdems and Tory party, the truly sad thing is that these same people forced out the Malcolm Meerabux who might even get my second vote if he stood for Mayor as an independent.
[quote][p][bold]EU_OUT_NOW[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]EU_OUT_NOW[/bold] wrote: Now come on "dontknowynot" try not to be your usual antagonistic self. Phil is a really nice guy and would make a very good Mayor.[/p][/quote]just trying to gauge his knowledge of something tat has been an issue in watford for a while, hardly antagonistic. this from Cllr Johnson when he stood for the conservatives as Mayoral candidate http://www.conservat ivehome.com/localgov ernment/2010/03/cons ervative-candidate-f or-mayor-of-watford- pledges-to-halve-sal ary.html thats the same cllr who now supports the Mayor as one of her libdem cllrs[/p][/quote]Very interesting reading, even if it is dated March 24, 2010. How do you find all this information?.... You are like a political encyclopedia. He didn't get the job though despite his unrealistic promises...[/p][/quote]2010 illustrates that it is a longstanding issue no? As to the encyclopedia comment well I hardly know how to take that or indeed how it was intended. Unrealistic or not the guy seems to be a total hypocrite and as such well suited to both the Libdems and Tory party, the truly sad thing is that these same people forced out the Malcolm Meerabux who might even get my second vote if he stood for Mayor as an independent. dontknowynot
  • Score: 5

8:40pm Fri 31 Jan 14

EU_OUT_NOW says...

dontknowynot says...

"As to the encyclopedia comment well I hardly know how to take that or indeed how it was intended". A compliment of course!
dontknowynot says... "As to the encyclopedia comment well I hardly know how to take that or indeed how it was intended". A compliment of course! EU_OUT_NOW
  • Score: -1

9:13pm Fri 31 Jan 14

E.Coli says...

You will get my vote
You will get my vote E.Coli
  • Score: 5

9:45pm Fri 31 Jan 14

Jack18 says...

Phil, I wish you the very best of luck in the upcoming local elections. I hope that you will do a better job than Dotty as she has made some ridiculous decisions such as spending £4m revamping the top of the town by building a bridge over the pond. I think that is a waste of money and should be spent elsewhere.

Unfortunately Dotty is quite popular amongst many people in the town so you will need to convince a lot of people to make yourself known. Wish you all the best.
Phil, I wish you the very best of luck in the upcoming local elections. I hope that you will do a better job than Dotty as she has made some ridiculous decisions such as spending £4m revamping the top of the town by building a bridge over the pond. I think that is a waste of money and should be spent elsewhere. Unfortunately Dotty is quite popular amongst many people in the town so you will need to convince a lot of people to make yourself known. Wish you all the best. Jack18
  • Score: 5

11:10pm Fri 31 Jan 14

BrianUKIP says...

Labours Councillor Khan wrote a stand-alone article in 2004 entitled ‘Introduction to the Fiqh of Minorities—A Jurisprudence to Assimilation’ one of many statements he makes that:

“Has there been any election in which the Muslims did not disagree, such as the local elections in the UK, where some Muslims joined or voted for the Liberal Democrats; the party that was in power when the Khilafah was destroyed. Some advocated the joining of the Conservative party, and some even were proud to display the fact that they were members of the Labour party.”
“The same can be said about the current Labour Party, where many Muslims voted for this part expecting the lives of Muslims to be easier, but instead it has been full of misery. “Page 27

It seems that all the established parties are full of hypocrisy.

Come on Phil it’s time for a change.
Labours Councillor Khan wrote a stand-alone article in 2004 entitled ‘Introduction to the Fiqh of Minorities—A Jurisprudence to Assimilation’ one of many statements he makes that: “Has there been any election in which the Muslims did not disagree, such as the local elections in the UK, where some Muslims joined or voted for the Liberal Democrats; the party that was in power when the Khilafah was destroyed. Some advocated the joining of the Conservative party, and some even were proud to display the fact that they were members of the Labour party.” “The same can be said about the current Labour Party, where many Muslims voted for this part expecting the lives of Muslims to be easier, but instead it has been full of misery. “Page 27 It seems that all the established parties are full of hypocrisy. Come on Phil it’s time for a change. BrianUKIP
  • Score: 0

11:35pm Fri 31 Jan 14

G_Whiz says...

Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
gusgreen wrote:
Good on you Phil,at last an opportunity to have a mayor who will act on what the people want, rather than the self spinning,misleading,


untruthful bunch of individuals who are in local politics to get what they can for themselves!

Good Luck
Thank you most kindly, Gus.

Now I'll just wait for the other three parties to read your comment and collectively vote it down.
Haha - So i am not the only one that's spotted the lib-Dems have a vote up/down system in place - i bet Dotty has a row of tax funded laptops on the go 24-7!

patterns and timings give it all away!

The 4th party are getting desperate! lol!
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gusgreen[/bold] wrote: Good on you Phil,at last an opportunity to have a mayor who will act on what the people want, rather than the self spinning,misleading, untruthful bunch of individuals who are in local politics to get what they can for themselves! Good Luck[/p][/quote]Thank you most kindly, Gus. Now I'll just wait for the other three parties to read your comment and collectively vote it down.[/p][/quote]Haha - So i am not the only one that's spotted the lib-Dems have a vote up/down system in place - i bet Dotty has a row of tax funded laptops on the go 24-7! patterns and timings give it all away! The 4th party are getting desperate! lol! G_Whiz
  • Score: 12

12:08am Sat 1 Feb 14

LSC says...

I wish you good luck Phil, perhaps you will be the breath of fresh air that lures me back to the ballot box, overcoming the fetid stench from the other parties.
I'm in Hertsmere so you won't be getting my vote, but where you lead, perhaps others might follow in my area.
I don't know that I like ALL UKIPs policies. But then I don't like ALL the policies of any party.

At local level when I was younger I voted along party lines. Then, as I got to know councillors and candidates, I voted along personality lines: Who really wanted what I want for my area?
But then I saw these people more and more dragged down by the national policies of the parties they 'represented'.
For me, an ideal council (and mayor) would all be independents. Local people representing the wishes of the ward that voted them in.

Now if Central Government says every village needs 3 duck-ponds, then if the local council is under the same colour flag, that is what you will get, even if your village has the record for highest level of duck allergies in the country.
Just think of the Green Belt story the other day. The people didn't want it. The Council didn't want it (they said, but who trusts who), but it is going ahead regardless. At the present time, local government is fairly pointless. Sure, they can say what day your bin is emptied. I'm not going out of my way to vote on that thanks.
I wish you good luck Phil, perhaps you will be the breath of fresh air that lures me back to the ballot box, overcoming the fetid stench from the other parties. I'm in Hertsmere so you won't be getting my vote, but where you lead, perhaps others might follow in my area. I don't know that I like ALL UKIPs policies. But then I don't like ALL the policies of any party. At local level when I was younger I voted along party lines. Then, as I got to know councillors and candidates, I voted along personality lines: Who really wanted what I want for my area? But then I saw these people more and more dragged down by the national policies of the parties they 'represented'. For me, an ideal council (and mayor) would all be independents. Local people representing the wishes of the ward that voted them in. Now if Central Government says every village needs 3 duck-ponds, then if the local council is under the same colour flag, that is what you will get, even if your village has the record for highest level of duck allergies in the country. Just think of the Green Belt story the other day. The people didn't want it. The Council didn't want it (they said, but who trusts who), but it is going ahead regardless. At the present time, local government is fairly pointless. Sure, they can say what day your bin is emptied. I'm not going out of my way to vote on that thanks. LSC
  • Score: 0

12:14am Sat 1 Feb 14

BrianUKIP says...

Councillor Khan how about this;

“The original principle we carry is that the Islamic rule should have supremacy over the whole earth. The principle should not be the acceptance of kufr rule and subjugation to it.” ‘Introduction to the Fiqh of Minorities—A Jurisprudence to Assimilation’ page 37

It’s a heavy read but very chilling.

Have you read this Phil?
Councillor Khan how about this; “The original principle we carry is that the Islamic rule should have supremacy over the whole earth. The principle should not be the acceptance of kufr rule and subjugation to it.” ‘Introduction to the Fiqh of Minorities—A Jurisprudence to Assimilation’ page 37 It’s a heavy read but very chilling. Have you read this Phil? BrianUKIP
  • Score: 2

12:37am Sat 1 Feb 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

E.Coli wrote:
You will get my vote
Thank you!
[quote][p][bold]E.Coli[/bold] wrote: You will get my vote[/p][/quote]Thank you! Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: 0

12:39am Sat 1 Feb 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

Jack18 wrote:
Phil, I wish you the very best of luck in the upcoming local elections. I hope that you will do a better job than Dotty as she has made some ridiculous decisions such as spending £4m revamping the top of the town by building a bridge over the pond. I think that is a waste of money and should be spent elsewhere.

Unfortunately Dotty is quite popular amongst many people in the town so you will need to convince a lot of people to make yourself known. Wish you all the best.
Thank you. I agree with your analysis and have said as much before.
[quote][p][bold]Jack18[/bold] wrote: Phil, I wish you the very best of luck in the upcoming local elections. I hope that you will do a better job than Dotty as she has made some ridiculous decisions such as spending £4m revamping the top of the town by building a bridge over the pond. I think that is a waste of money and should be spent elsewhere. Unfortunately Dotty is quite popular amongst many people in the town so you will need to convince a lot of people to make yourself known. Wish you all the best.[/p][/quote]Thank you. I agree with your analysis and have said as much before. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: 0

12:52am Sat 1 Feb 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

LSC wrote:
I wish you good luck Phil, perhaps you will be the breath of fresh air that lures me back to the ballot box, overcoming the fetid stench from the other parties.
I'm in Hertsmere so you won't be getting my vote, but where you lead, perhaps others might follow in my area.
I don't know that I like ALL UKIPs policies. But then I don't like ALL the policies of any party.

At local level when I was younger I voted along party lines. Then, as I got to know councillors and candidates, I voted along personality lines: Who really wanted what I want for my area?
But then I saw these people more and more dragged down by the national policies of the parties they 'represented'.
For me, an ideal council (and mayor) would all be independents. Local people representing the wishes of the ward that voted them in.

Now if Central Government says every village needs 3 duck-ponds, then if the local council is under the same colour flag, that is what you will get, even if your village has the record for highest level of duck allergies in the country.
Just think of the Green Belt story the other day. The people didn't want it. The Council didn't want it (they said, but who trusts who), but it is going ahead regardless. At the present time, local government is fairly pointless. Sure, they can say what day your bin is emptied. I'm not going out of my way to vote on that thanks.
I agree an ideal Mayor would not be tied to any party dogma.

Lucky for Watford that is true of both myself and UKIPs policy on local elections. We are encouraged to act as independents. Town first, party second. Every time. EVERY TIME. That's what attracted me to this job. I don't like being tied to someone else's ideology, and also I like the idea of referenda for when the town thinks I got it wrong. (No-one's perfect, no-one can be right all the time. I don't mind being told I'm wrong.)

It really will be a breath of fresh air. All we need now is more votes than the LibDems! What could be easier?
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: I wish you good luck Phil, perhaps you will be the breath of fresh air that lures me back to the ballot box, overcoming the fetid stench from the other parties. I'm in Hertsmere so you won't be getting my vote, but where you lead, perhaps others might follow in my area. I don't know that I like ALL UKIPs policies. But then I don't like ALL the policies of any party. At local level when I was younger I voted along party lines. Then, as I got to know councillors and candidates, I voted along personality lines: Who really wanted what I want for my area? But then I saw these people more and more dragged down by the national policies of the parties they 'represented'. For me, an ideal council (and mayor) would all be independents. Local people representing the wishes of the ward that voted them in. Now if Central Government says every village needs 3 duck-ponds, then if the local council is under the same colour flag, that is what you will get, even if your village has the record for highest level of duck allergies in the country. Just think of the Green Belt story the other day. The people didn't want it. The Council didn't want it (they said, but who trusts who), but it is going ahead regardless. At the present time, local government is fairly pointless. Sure, they can say what day your bin is emptied. I'm not going out of my way to vote on that thanks.[/p][/quote]I agree an ideal Mayor would not be tied to any party dogma. Lucky for Watford that is true of both myself and UKIPs policy on local elections. We are encouraged to act as independents. Town first, party second. Every time. EVERY TIME. That's what attracted me to this job. I don't like being tied to someone else's ideology, and also I like the idea of referenda for when the town thinks I got it wrong. (No-one's perfect, no-one can be right all the time. I don't mind being told I'm wrong.) It really will be a breath of fresh air. All we need now is more votes than the LibDems! What could be easier? Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: 1

7:59am Sat 1 Feb 14

BrianUKIP says...

Councillor Khan how about this;

“The tangible, perceptible reality shows us that the benefit of participating in the political life of the West is imaginary and not real.”‘Introduct
ion to the Fiqh of Minorities—A Jurisprudence to Assimilation’ page 37

It’s a heavy read but very chilling.

Have you read this Phil?
Councillor Khan how about this; “The tangible, perceptible reality shows us that the benefit of participating in the political life of the West is imaginary and not real.”‘Introduct ion to the Fiqh of Minorities—A Jurisprudence to Assimilation’ page 37 It’s a heavy read but very chilling. Have you read this Phil? BrianUKIP
  • Score: -1

8:13am Sat 1 Feb 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

I will be at the UKIP stand opposite BHS this morning.

Please come along and say hello.
I will be at the UKIP stand opposite BHS this morning. Please come along and say hello. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: 1

8:14am Sat 1 Feb 14

BrianUKIP says...

Notable statements of Councillor Khan;

“Our mindset has become besotted with some of its thoughts such as individualism, personal freedoms, and the like. This has resulted in the thoughts and sentiments of many Muslims, being tainted with these rotten ideas.” Khilafah Magazine 2003-October

Have you read this Phil?
Notable statements of Councillor Khan; “Our mindset has become besotted with some of its thoughts such as individualism, personal freedoms, and the like. This has resulted in the thoughts and sentiments of many Muslims, being tainted with these rotten ideas.” Khilafah Magazine 2003-October Have you read this Phil? BrianUKIP
  • Score: 0

8:21am Sat 1 Feb 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

BrianUKIP wrote:
Notable statements of Councillor Khan;

“Our mindset has become besotted with some of its thoughts such as individualism, personal freedoms, and the like. This has resulted in the thoughts and sentiments of many Muslims, being tainted with these rotten ideas.” Khilafah Magazine 2003-October

Have you read this Phil?
I may have done Brian, if it was in an old WO story, otherwise no.

Must go, street stall to attend.
[quote][p][bold]BrianUKIP[/bold] wrote: Notable statements of Councillor Khan; “Our mindset has become besotted with some of its thoughts such as individualism, personal freedoms, and the like. This has resulted in the thoughts and sentiments of many Muslims, being tainted with these rotten ideas.” Khilafah Magazine 2003-October Have you read this Phil?[/p][/quote]I may have done Brian, if it was in an old WO story, otherwise no. Must go, street stall to attend. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: -1

8:43am Sat 1 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

BrianUKIP wrote:
Notable statements of Councillor Khan;

“Our mindset has become besotted with some of its thoughts such as individualism, personal freedoms, and the like. This has resulted in the thoughts and sentiments of many Muslims, being tainted with these rotten ideas.” Khilafah Magazine 2003-October

Have you read this Phil?
and your point is what BrianUKIP
Come on spit it out
[quote][p][bold]BrianUKIP[/bold] wrote: Notable statements of Councillor Khan; “Our mindset has become besotted with some of its thoughts such as individualism, personal freedoms, and the like. This has resulted in the thoughts and sentiments of many Muslims, being tainted with these rotten ideas.” Khilafah Magazine 2003-October Have you read this Phil?[/p][/quote]and your point is what BrianUKIP Come on spit it out dontknowynot
  • Score: 1

9:04am Sat 1 Feb 14

BrianUKIP says...

dontknowynot wrote:
BrianUKIP wrote:
Notable statements of Councillor Khan;

“Our mindset has become besotted with some of its thoughts such as individualism, personal freedoms, and the like. This has resulted in the thoughts and sentiments of many Muslims, being tainted with these rotten ideas.” Khilafah Magazine 2003-October

Have you read this Phil?
and your point is what BrianUKIP
Come on spit it out
I was agreeing with your point that established parties are full of hypocrites.

Thats why Phil will be a breath of fresh air.
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BrianUKIP[/bold] wrote: Notable statements of Councillor Khan; “Our mindset has become besotted with some of its thoughts such as individualism, personal freedoms, and the like. This has resulted in the thoughts and sentiments of many Muslims, being tainted with these rotten ideas.” Khilafah Magazine 2003-October Have you read this Phil?[/p][/quote]and your point is what BrianUKIP Come on spit it out[/p][/quote]I was agreeing with your point that established parties are full of hypocrites. Thats why Phil will be a breath of fresh air. BrianUKIP
  • Score: 1

10:23am Sat 1 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

BrianUKIP wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
BrianUKIP wrote:
Notable statements of Councillor Khan;

“Our mindset has become besotted with some of its thoughts such as individualism, personal freedoms, and the like. This has resulted in the thoughts and sentiments of many Muslims, being tainted with these rotten ideas.” Khilafah Magazine 2003-October

Have you read this Phil?
and your point is what BrianUKIP
Come on spit it out
I was agreeing with your point that established parties are full of hypocrites.

Thats why Phil will be a breath of fresh air.
Khan changed his mind between 2003 and 2011 whilst not holding a public post, the cllr ran for Mayor helped force another cllr out of the Tory party and then went LibDem, It is a world of difference!
For a party that wants people to change their mind I do find personal attacks on people who have changed their minds somewhat puzzling, but there goes, maybe it is because your party does not value the votes of Muslims.
What other voters don't you value Homosexuals, Afro Caribbean, Africans, Chinese, Buddhists, Hindus, Catholics, Irish, seventh day Adventists eastern Europeans??? Before you ask no I am not being antagonistic just asking.
[quote][p][bold]BrianUKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BrianUKIP[/bold] wrote: Notable statements of Councillor Khan; “Our mindset has become besotted with some of its thoughts such as individualism, personal freedoms, and the like. This has resulted in the thoughts and sentiments of many Muslims, being tainted with these rotten ideas.” Khilafah Magazine 2003-October Have you read this Phil?[/p][/quote]and your point is what BrianUKIP Come on spit it out[/p][/quote]I was agreeing with your point that established parties are full of hypocrites. Thats why Phil will be a breath of fresh air.[/p][/quote]Khan changed his mind between 2003 and 2011 whilst not holding a public post, the cllr ran for Mayor helped force another cllr out of the Tory party and then went LibDem, It is a world of difference! For a party that wants people to change their mind I do find personal attacks on people who have changed their minds somewhat puzzling, but there goes, maybe it is because your party does not value the votes of Muslims. What other voters don't you value Homosexuals, Afro Caribbean, Africans, Chinese, Buddhists, Hindus, Catholics, Irish, seventh day Adventists eastern Europeans??? Before you ask no I am not being antagonistic just asking. dontknowynot
  • Score: -4

12:02pm Sat 1 Feb 14

D_Penn says...

@dontknowynot

You said: "maybe it is because your party does not value the votes of Muslims.
What other voters don't you value Homosexuals, Afro Caribbean, Africans, Chinese, Buddhists, Hindus, Catholics, Irish, seventh day Adventists eastern Europeans??? Before you ask no I am not being antagonistic just asking."

We have UKIP members who belong to all those groups you mentioned, so your comment is just ridiculous - as I suspect you already knew.

As you are well aware, because we keep teling you, UKIP stands up for all the people of this country regardless of gender, age, race, creed, colour and sexual preference.

You only keep harping on about this topic all over the WO because you either have an extremely short memory or you want to remain bigotted to suit your political aims. It's getting boring and, judging by the direction we are heading in the polls, the electorate are not being fooled by this rubbish argument your Labour party keep trying to recycle.
@dontknowynot You said: "maybe it is because your party does not value the votes of Muslims. What other voters don't you value Homosexuals, Afro Caribbean, Africans, Chinese, Buddhists, Hindus, Catholics, Irish, seventh day Adventists eastern Europeans??? Before you ask no I am not being antagonistic just asking." We have UKIP members who belong to all those groups you mentioned, so your comment is just ridiculous - as I suspect you already knew. As you are well aware, because we keep teling you, UKIP stands up for all the people of this country regardless of gender, age, race, creed, colour and sexual preference. You only keep harping on about this topic all over the WO because you either have an extremely short memory or you want to remain bigotted to suit your political aims. It's getting boring and, judging by the direction we are heading in the polls, the electorate are not being fooled by this rubbish argument your Labour party keep trying to recycle. D_Penn
  • Score: 0

12:22pm Sat 1 Feb 14

EU_OUT_NOW says...

dontknowynot says......

Now I did ask you not to be your usual antagonistic self "dontknowynot" but your starting again, the way you always do! Try not to spoil this comments page, I know you can't help yourself but do try!
dontknowynot says...... Now I did ask you not to be your usual antagonistic self "dontknowynot" but your starting again, the way you always do! Try not to spoil this comments page, I know you can't help yourself but do try! EU_OUT_NOW
  • Score: -1

12:39pm Sat 1 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

D_Penn wrote:
@dontknowynot

You said: "maybe it is because your party does not value the votes of Muslims.
What other voters don't you value Homosexuals, Afro Caribbean, Africans, Chinese, Buddhists, Hindus, Catholics, Irish, seventh day Adventists eastern Europeans??? Before you ask no I am not being antagonistic just asking."

We have UKIP members who belong to all those groups you mentioned, so your comment is just ridiculous - as I suspect you already knew.

As you are well aware, because we keep teling you, UKIP stands up for all the people of this country regardless of gender, age, race, creed, colour and sexual preference.

You only keep harping on about this topic all over the WO because you either have an extremely short memory or you want to remain bigotted to suit your political aims. It's getting boring and, judging by the direction we are heading in the polls, the electorate are not being fooled by this rubbish argument your Labour party keep trying to recycle.
yerright
But on the subject of hypocrisy your party can't help jumping on the Muslim example can you???
And a very week example at that one equal in worth to me saying MEP Agnew is a hypocrite for serving in the Rhodesian army and then coming back here when he saw they were lossing the Bush war.
Its your partys problem and we are not talking Walter Mitty here, for example being in a grouping with anti homosexual views one of your own MPs found so repugnant she left the party and receiving donations from someone who puts anti gay adverts in the press does not help.
Producing election leaflets with all white faces on (remember boom assaulting that jurno) does not help.
Its a question of maths here Watford is what 70 white British reduce that by a couple more and you have 68, now no matter what you say your party has given you a harder job to get elected as 42% of the pop is biased against you from the start.
Plus look at what you are doing all the time you can't help yourselves bashing the left, even thou the party to beat localy is the libdems, your members find a weak left example why not Ian & Jan Brown (both of the right and white) or that ex Tory cllr (right and white) why not stand up and say Malcolm (black) is a good example of a local cllr.
But the maths is worse than that because your arty clearly wants to go on a ticket of common sense to able to working class but by that you come across as seeking white working class, but where are they, ill tell you living alongside non white British working class. I am sorry you are lumbering yourself with so much baggage on this
[quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: @dontknowynot You said: "maybe it is because your party does not value the votes of Muslims. What other voters don't you value Homosexuals, Afro Caribbean, Africans, Chinese, Buddhists, Hindus, Catholics, Irish, seventh day Adventists eastern Europeans??? Before you ask no I am not being antagonistic just asking." We have UKIP members who belong to all those groups you mentioned, so your comment is just ridiculous - as I suspect you already knew. As you are well aware, because we keep teling you, UKIP stands up for all the people of this country regardless of gender, age, race, creed, colour and sexual preference. You only keep harping on about this topic all over the WO because you either have an extremely short memory or you want to remain bigotted to suit your political aims. It's getting boring and, judging by the direction we are heading in the polls, the electorate are not being fooled by this rubbish argument your Labour party keep trying to recycle.[/p][/quote]yerright But on the subject of hypocrisy your party can't help jumping on the Muslim example can you??? And a very week example at that one equal in worth to me saying MEP Agnew is a hypocrite for serving in the Rhodesian army and then coming back here when he saw they were lossing the Bush war. Its your partys problem and we are not talking Walter Mitty here, for example being in a grouping with anti homosexual views one of your own MPs found so repugnant she left the party and receiving donations from someone who puts anti gay adverts in the press does not help. Producing election leaflets with all white faces on (remember boom assaulting that jurno) does not help. Its a question of maths here Watford is what 70 white British reduce that by a couple more and you have 68, now no matter what you say your party has given you a harder job to get elected as 42% of the pop is biased against you from the start. Plus look at what you are doing all the time you can't help yourselves bashing the left, even thou the party to beat localy is the libdems, your members find a weak left example why not Ian & Jan Brown (both of the right and white) or that ex Tory cllr (right and white) why not stand up and say Malcolm (black) is a good example of a local cllr. But the maths is worse than that because your arty clearly wants to go on a ticket of common sense to able to working class but by that you come across as seeking white working class, but where are they, ill tell you living alongside non white British working class. I am sorry you are lumbering yourself with so much baggage on this dontknowynot
  • Score: -4

1:08pm Sat 1 Feb 14

BrianUKIP says...

dontknowynot you have brought up the issue of homosexuality. Councillor Khan has very strong views on the subject;


“During the early 20th century, homosexuality was considered an abominable manifestation of the devil and today it is not only accepted as normal, but the entire culture of homosexuality is being enforced in the school curriculum.” Khilafah Magazine 2003-March.

dontknowynot stop digging a hole for yourself.
dontknowynot you have brought up the issue of homosexuality. Councillor Khan has very strong views on the subject; “During the early 20th century, homosexuality was considered an abominable manifestation of the devil and today it is not only accepted as normal, but the entire culture of homosexuality is being enforced in the school curriculum.” Khilafah Magazine 2003-March. dontknowynot stop digging a hole for yourself. BrianUKIP
  • Score: 1

1:34pm Sat 1 Feb 14

EU_OUT_NOW says...

BrianUKIP wrote:
dontknowynot you have brought up the issue of homosexuality. Councillor Khan has very strong views on the subject;


“During the early 20th century, homosexuality was considered an abominable manifestation of the devil and today it is not only accepted as normal, but the entire culture of homosexuality is being enforced in the school curriculum.” Khilafah Magazine 2003-March.

dontknowynot stop digging a hole for yourself.
He always digs a hole for himself, every time he comes on here, even to the point of burying himself. But the sh*t keeps climbing back out for yet another round of troll like bashing, does in every WO Topic!!
[quote][p][bold]BrianUKIP[/bold] wrote: dontknowynot you have brought up the issue of homosexuality. Councillor Khan has very strong views on the subject; “During the early 20th century, homosexuality was considered an abominable manifestation of the devil and today it is not only accepted as normal, but the entire culture of homosexuality is being enforced in the school curriculum.” Khilafah Magazine 2003-March. dontknowynot stop digging a hole for yourself.[/p][/quote]He always digs a hole for himself, every time he comes on here, even to the point of burying himself. But the sh*t keeps climbing back out for yet another round of troll like bashing, does in every WO Topic!! EU_OUT_NOW
  • Score: 0

2:55pm Sat 1 Feb 14

D_Penn says...

@dontknowynot

That last post of yours responding to mine was the worst I have seen from you. Just a load of race orientated drivel. Like so many in your Labour party, you really are race obsessed, desperately trying to look as though everyone else but you lot are biased against workers or ethnic minorities.

In UKIP we dont patronise different groups just to get their votes the way you do. We treat everyone absolutely equally which is the way it should be.

Instead of trying to win ethnic minority votes with simpering head-patting, why don't you rethink your policies? Many arrived in Britain when you opened the borders, but what did you do to help them when they came here? Nothing. Britain did not have the infrastructure to take so many, but your lot didn't care as long as you could 'rub the right's nose in diversity'. In other words you shamefully used people for nothing more than your own political ends.

By the end of your disasterous tenure in government, Britain was busting at the seams and nearly bankrupt. Who took the biggest brunt for your debacle? The poor people who were newly arrived here and couldn't get jobs.

So don't let me hear you spouting more rubbish about Labour and its love of the working class and support for ethnic minorities. Your party have done more to damage their wealth and prospects than any government in the last 70 years. Shameful.
@dontknowynot That last post of yours responding to mine was the worst I have seen from you. Just a load of race orientated drivel. Like so many in your Labour party, you really are race obsessed, desperately trying to look as though everyone else but you lot are biased against workers or ethnic minorities. In UKIP we dont patronise different groups just to get their votes the way you do. We treat everyone absolutely equally which is the way it should be. Instead of trying to win ethnic minority votes with simpering head-patting, why don't you rethink your policies? Many arrived in Britain when you opened the borders, but what did you do to help them when they came here? Nothing. Britain did not have the infrastructure to take so many, but your lot didn't care as long as you could 'rub the right's nose in diversity'. In other words you shamefully used people for nothing more than your own political ends. By the end of your disasterous tenure in government, Britain was busting at the seams and nearly bankrupt. Who took the biggest brunt for your debacle? The poor people who were newly arrived here and couldn't get jobs. So don't let me hear you spouting more rubbish about Labour and its love of the working class and support for ethnic minorities. Your party have done more to damage their wealth and prospects than any government in the last 70 years. Shameful. D_Penn
  • Score: -1

3:02pm Sat 1 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

EU_OUT_NOW wrote:
BrianUKIP wrote:
dontknowynot you have brought up the issue of homosexuality. Councillor Khan has very strong views on the subject;


“During the early 20th century, homosexuality was considered an abominable manifestation of the devil and today it is not only accepted as normal, but the entire culture of homosexuality is being enforced in the school curriculum.” Khilafah Magazine 2003-March.

dontknowynot stop digging a hole for yourself.
He always digs a hole for himself, every time he comes on here, even to the point of burying himself. But the sh*t keeps climbing back out for yet another round of troll like bashing, does in every WO Topic!!
as stated between his statements in 2003 are not reflective of the platform he choose to stand on in 2011 .

This is compleatly different from the glaring examples of A n ex tory Councillor urging people to vote Labour and then criticizing Labour cllrs for being in the very administration they themselves urged people to vote for.
As with Councillor Ian Brown who backed Vince Muspratt when he stood for Mayor yet this week jeered Councillor Jagtar Singh Dhindsa along with the rest of the Libdems for being in the Lab council at the time.
Or indeed the hypocrisy of Councillor Stephen Johnson .
Why are you not critical of these white Libdem hypocrites who changed their minds while in office and under political mandate, why dont you champion Councillor Malcolm Meerabux who has stuck with being an independent, why do you continue to use the weak example of a Muslim changing his mind outside of office, nothing to do with color??
Why do you ignore my point re your MEP Agnew serving in the white supremacist Rhodesian army. I know it is of little relevance but it is also of little relevance what Khan did in 2003 I don't think he was even in the Labour party then, indeed from what I recall he was motivated by opposition to the Iraq war so would not have been.
Nothing to do with color is it, then what your hatred of the left???
[quote][p][bold]EU_OUT_NOW[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BrianUKIP[/bold] wrote: dontknowynot you have brought up the issue of homosexuality. Councillor Khan has very strong views on the subject; “During the early 20th century, homosexuality was considered an abominable manifestation of the devil and today it is not only accepted as normal, but the entire culture of homosexuality is being enforced in the school curriculum.” Khilafah Magazine 2003-March. dontknowynot stop digging a hole for yourself.[/p][/quote]He always digs a hole for himself, every time he comes on here, even to the point of burying himself. But the sh*t keeps climbing back out for yet another round of troll like bashing, does in every WO Topic!![/p][/quote]as stated between his statements in 2003 are not reflective of the platform he choose to stand on in 2011 . This is compleatly different from the glaring examples of A n ex tory Councillor urging people to vote Labour and then criticizing Labour cllrs for being in the very administration they themselves urged people to vote for. As with Councillor Ian Brown who backed Vince Muspratt when he stood for Mayor yet this week jeered Councillor Jagtar Singh Dhindsa along with the rest of the Libdems for being in the Lab council at the time. Or indeed the hypocrisy of Councillor Stephen Johnson . Why are you not critical of these white Libdem hypocrites who changed their minds while in office and under political mandate, why dont you champion Councillor Malcolm Meerabux who has stuck with being an independent, why do you continue to use the weak example of a Muslim changing his mind outside of office, nothing to do with color?? Why do you ignore my point re your MEP Agnew serving in the white supremacist Rhodesian army. I know it is of little relevance but it is also of little relevance what Khan did in 2003 I don't think he was even in the Labour party then, indeed from what I recall he was motivated by opposition to the Iraq war so would not have been. Nothing to do with color is it, then what your hatred of the left??? dontknowynot
  • Score: -2

3:36pm Sat 1 Feb 14

BrianUKIP says...

dontknowynot you are correct in 2003 Khan wasn't a member of the Labour party he was a member of Hizb-ut-Tahrir, He was elected to the National Executive Committee in March 2004. (goggle Hizb-ut-Tahrir aims they are truly frightening)

My original point was Labour are as guilty of hypocrisy as any other local established party.

I read in the Watford Observer yesterday that Labour Councillor Ann Joynes was being accused of hypocrisy over agreeing one thing at meetings and writing the opposite to the Watford Observer letters page.

They are all at it, especially your party.

Its time for a change.
dontknowynot you are correct in 2003 Khan wasn't a member of the Labour party he was a member of Hizb-ut-Tahrir, He was elected to the National Executive Committee in March 2004. (goggle Hizb-ut-Tahrir aims they are truly frightening) My original point was Labour are as guilty of hypocrisy as any other local established party. I read in the Watford Observer yesterday that Labour Councillor Ann Joynes was being accused of hypocrisy over agreeing one thing at meetings and writing the opposite to the Watford Observer letters page. They are all at it, especially your party. Its time for a change. BrianUKIP
  • Score: 0

4:03pm Sat 1 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

BrianUKIP wrote:
dontknowynot you are correct in 2003 Khan wasn't a member of the Labour party he was a member of Hizb-ut-Tahrir, He was elected to the National Executive Committee in March 2004. (goggle Hizb-ut-Tahrir aims they are truly frightening)

My original point was Labour are as guilty of hypocrisy as any other local established party.

I read in the Watford Observer yesterday that Labour Councillor Ann Joynes was being accused of hypocrisy over agreeing one thing at meetings and writing the opposite to the Watford Observer letters page.

They are all at it, especially your party.

Its time for a change.
so if I push and push and push you will come up with a white example of someone being accused yet give no details and it does not seem to have warranted the WO reporting it.
I suppose thats because she is Labour and therefore on the Left, therefore fair game.
when you say
"They are all at it, especially your party. Its time for a change"
and offer the thinnest of evidence to support the charge against Labour yet ignore glaring examples of hypocrisy from the LIbdem/tory party, I think you prove my point
[quote][p][bold]BrianUKIP[/bold] wrote: dontknowynot you are correct in 2003 Khan wasn't a member of the Labour party he was a member of Hizb-ut-Tahrir, He was elected to the National Executive Committee in March 2004. (goggle Hizb-ut-Tahrir aims they are truly frightening) My original point was Labour are as guilty of hypocrisy as any other local established party. I read in the Watford Observer yesterday that Labour Councillor Ann Joynes was being accused of hypocrisy over agreeing one thing at meetings and writing the opposite to the Watford Observer letters page. They are all at it, especially your party. Its time for a change.[/p][/quote]so if I push and push and push you will come up with a white example of someone being accused yet give no details and it does not seem to have warranted the WO reporting it. I suppose thats because she is Labour and therefore on the Left, therefore fair game. when you say "They are all at it, especially your party. Its time for a change" and offer the thinnest of evidence to support the charge against Labour yet ignore glaring examples of hypocrisy from the LIbdem/tory party, I think you prove my point dontknowynot
  • Score: 1

4:27pm Sat 1 Feb 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

Getnlemen,

can we please stop this bickering and get back onto the story - me! (tongue-in-cheek)

I believe DKYN and Cllr Khan when they say he has abandoned those views from an earlier time. I have no problem whatsoever with Cllr Khan and indeed I look forward to working with such able councillors. The same goes for Malcolm Meerabux who I know and I know he works very hard not just for his constituents but for the whole town.

I want people on the council who can see above party and do what's right for this town if I become Mayor. Territorial politics is bad politics. This town needs a change and it needs politicians of all parties to take that on board. You were elected by the people of Watford, not your party, so work for the people of Watford. It's your job and they pay your wages.

If you can't work with the interests of the people of Watford first and foremost in your minds, then please do not stand. Watford will be far better off without you.

I look forward to working with any councillor who will work to put this town first. No Party will get favourable treatment from me as Mayor, I will treat each councillor on their merits and I hope that, under a UKIP administration, they will all agree to stop this party in-fighting and work together for the town.

Not all parties will be happy all the time, but each party will be treated equally fairly, as will of course my friend Malcolm.

We will have to work together in the future, let's make that a positive future for Watford and put party politics to one side.

I hope that makes my position crystal clear.

Now please, no more posts about Cllr Khan's past. Let us all look to the future and make it a positive one for Watford.
Getnlemen, can we please stop this bickering and get back onto the story - me! (tongue-in-cheek) I believe DKYN and Cllr Khan when they say he has abandoned those views from an earlier time. I have no problem whatsoever with Cllr Khan and indeed I look forward to working with such able councillors. The same goes for Malcolm Meerabux who I know and I know he works very hard not just for his constituents but for the whole town. I want people on the council who can see above party and do what's right for this town if I become Mayor. Territorial politics is bad politics. This town needs a change and it needs politicians of all parties to take that on board. You were elected by the people of Watford, not your party, so work for the people of Watford. It's your job and they pay your wages. If you can't work with the interests of the people of Watford first and foremost in your minds, then please do not stand. Watford will be far better off without you. I look forward to working with any councillor who will work to put this town first. No Party will get favourable treatment from me as Mayor, I will treat each councillor on their merits and I hope that, under a UKIP administration, they will all agree to stop this party in-fighting and work together for the town. Not all parties will be happy all the time, but each party will be treated equally fairly, as will of course my friend Malcolm. We will have to work together in the future, let's make that a positive future for Watford and put party politics to one side. I hope that makes my position crystal clear. Now please, no more posts about Cllr Khan's past. Let us all look to the future and make it a positive one for Watford. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: 4

5:21pm Sat 1 Feb 14

Cuetip says...

Politics remain so tribal and the 3 main parties still put up paper candidates who haven't clue about local issues

They are are young, inexperienced, or those who are seeking some superior social status. Both groups display an arrogance to most groups.

Phil has shown that he is no paper candidate.
Politics remain so tribal and the 3 main parties still put up paper candidates who haven't clue about local issues They are are young, inexperienced, or those who are seeking some superior social status. Both groups display an arrogance to most groups. Phil has shown that he is no paper candidate. Cuetip
  • Score: 7

5:41pm Sat 1 Feb 14

BrianUKIP says...

Phil,
I am rather disappointed you feel you have a right to control this page “now please, no more posts about Cllr Khan's past”.

If I want to highlight that UKIP wouldn't allow an extremist to join our party I will. Our policy is not to allow ex-extremist members like Khan join our party. No ex- Extremists like BNP are able to join our party.

Please Phil don’t let your new position go to your head.
Phil, I am rather disappointed you feel you have a right to control this page “now please, no more posts about Cllr Khan's past”. If I want to highlight that UKIP wouldn't allow an extremist to join our party I will. Our policy is not to allow ex-extremist members like Khan join our party. No ex- Extremists like BNP are able to join our party. Please Phil don’t let your new position go to your head. BrianUKIP
  • Score: -1

6:54pm Sat 1 Feb 14

Tony Noeu says...

Phil

I hope your not letting things go to your head and thus getting above your station. You should be allowing free speech and UKIP and your good self should be denouncing certain views. Our party do not allow extremists and policy does not allow organisations such as BNP to join.

Councillor Asif Khan was on the national executive of hizb-ut-tahrir.

Phil do you agree with the aims and objectives of an organisation associated with extremism and radicalisation ?
Phil I hope your not letting things go to your head and thus getting above your station. You should be allowing free speech and UKIP and your good self should be denouncing certain views. Our party do not allow extremists and policy does not allow organisations such as BNP to join. Councillor Asif Khan was on the national executive of hizb-ut-tahrir. Phil do you agree with the aims and objectives of an organisation associated with extremism and radicalisation ? Tony Noeu
  • Score: 2

7:00pm Sat 1 Feb 14

EU_OUT_NOW says...

BrianUKIP wrote:
Phil,
I am rather disappointed you feel you have a right to control this page “now please, no more posts about Cllr Khan's past”.

If I want to highlight that UKIP wouldn't allow an extremist to join our party I will. Our policy is not to allow ex-extremist members like Khan join our party. No ex- Extremists like BNP are able to join our party.

Please Phil don’t let your new position go to your head.
I thought this page was about..... "Vice chairman of UKIP Watford, Phil Cox, unveiled as party's mayoral candidate" What do you want to talk about??? Cars, Food????
[quote][p][bold]BrianUKIP[/bold] wrote: Phil, I am rather disappointed you feel you have a right to control this page “now please, no more posts about Cllr Khan's past”. If I want to highlight that UKIP wouldn't allow an extremist to join our party I will. Our policy is not to allow ex-extremist members like Khan join our party. No ex- Extremists like BNP are able to join our party. Please Phil don’t let your new position go to your head.[/p][/quote]I thought this page was about..... "Vice chairman of UKIP Watford, Phil Cox, unveiled as party's mayoral candidate" What do you want to talk about??? Cars, Food???? EU_OUT_NOW
  • Score: 2

7:13pm Sat 1 Feb 14

Tony Noeu says...

EU_OUT_NOW wrote:
BrianUKIP wrote:
Phil,
I am rather disappointed you feel you have a right to control this page “now please, no more posts about Cllr Khan's past”.

If I want to highlight that UKIP wouldn't allow an extremist to join our party I will. Our policy is not to allow ex-extremist members like Khan join our party. No ex- Extremists like BNP are able to join our party.

Please Phil don’t let your new position go to your head.
I thought this page was about..... "Vice chairman of UKIP Watford, Phil Cox, unveiled as party's mayoral candidate" What do you want to talk about??? Cars, Food????
It is but the problem now is that UKIP are doing well in the polls and are no longer a protest vote. People are starting to take them seriously and hence the voters have every right to probe Phil to see where he stands on certain things especially those floating persuadable voters.

I am disappointed that Phil has not immediately distanced himself from organisations that hold views incompatible with UKIP.

He could have put a stop to this. Ultimately it is those floating voters that we do not want to put off voting UKIP.
[quote][p][bold]EU_OUT_NOW[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BrianUKIP[/bold] wrote: Phil, I am rather disappointed you feel you have a right to control this page “now please, no more posts about Cllr Khan's past”. If I want to highlight that UKIP wouldn't allow an extremist to join our party I will. Our policy is not to allow ex-extremist members like Khan join our party. No ex- Extremists like BNP are able to join our party. Please Phil don’t let your new position go to your head.[/p][/quote]I thought this page was about..... "Vice chairman of UKIP Watford, Phil Cox, unveiled as party's mayoral candidate" What do you want to talk about??? Cars, Food????[/p][/quote]It is but the problem now is that UKIP are doing well in the polls and are no longer a protest vote. People are starting to take them seriously and hence the voters have every right to probe Phil to see where he stands on certain things especially those floating persuadable voters. I am disappointed that Phil has not immediately distanced himself from organisations that hold views incompatible with UKIP. He could have put a stop to this. Ultimately it is those floating voters that we do not want to put off voting UKIP. Tony Noeu
  • Score: 1

7:27pm Sat 1 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

Fine
your choice only accessing a limited number percentage of the electorate,
I take a rule of thumb in elections to be 40% gets you elected
you guys are looking to get 40% of the total vote out of 70% the electorate, you won't.
that makes you an irrelevnce.
As to Euro elections in 2009 you were third and now you are less reps in the EU parliament than the other three parties
vote UKIP get gawd knows what
Vote UKIP you know it makes nonsense
Fine your choice only accessing a limited number percentage of the electorate, I take a rule of thumb in elections to be 40% gets you elected you guys are looking to get 40% of the total vote out of 70% the electorate, you won't. that makes you an irrelevnce. As to Euro elections in 2009 you were third and now you are less reps in the EU parliament than the other three parties vote UKIP get gawd knows what Vote UKIP you know it makes nonsense dontknowynot
  • Score: 1

7:30pm Sat 1 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

dontknowynot wrote:
Fine
your choice only accessing a limited number percentage of the electorate,
I take a rule of thumb in elections to be 40% gets you elected
you guys are looking to get 40% of the total vote out of 70% the electorate, you won't.
that makes you an irrelevnce.
As to Euro elections in 2009 you were third and now you are less reps in the EU parliament than the other three parties
vote UKIP get gawd knows what
Vote UKIP you know it makes nonsense
that was second not third
ie you have gone from 2 to 4th without an election
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: Fine your choice only accessing a limited number percentage of the electorate, I take a rule of thumb in elections to be 40% gets you elected you guys are looking to get 40% of the total vote out of 70% the electorate, you won't. that makes you an irrelevnce. As to Euro elections in 2009 you were third and now you are less reps in the EU parliament than the other three parties vote UKIP get gawd knows what Vote UKIP you know it makes nonsense[/p][/quote]that was second not third ie you have gone from 2 to 4th without an election dontknowynot
  • Score: -1

7:36pm Sat 1 Feb 14

EU_OUT_NOW says...

dontknowynot wrote:
Fine
your choice only accessing a limited number percentage of the electorate,
I take a rule of thumb in elections to be 40% gets you elected
you guys are looking to get 40% of the total vote out of 70% the electorate, you won't.
that makes you an irrelevnce.
As to Euro elections in 2009 you were third and now you are less reps in the EU parliament than the other three parties
vote UKIP get gawd knows what
Vote UKIP you know it makes nonsense
I wish you would take your HRT tablets "dontknowynot"..... you know what you get like if you miss them! Vote UKIP. It's the only way forward. You know it makes SENSE.
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: Fine your choice only accessing a limited number percentage of the electorate, I take a rule of thumb in elections to be 40% gets you elected you guys are looking to get 40% of the total vote out of 70% the electorate, you won't. that makes you an irrelevnce. As to Euro elections in 2009 you were third and now you are less reps in the EU parliament than the other three parties vote UKIP get gawd knows what Vote UKIP you know it makes nonsense[/p][/quote]I wish you would take your HRT tablets "dontknowynot"..... you know what you get like if you miss them! Vote UKIP. It's the only way forward. You know it makes SENSE. EU_OUT_NOW
  • Score: -2

7:48pm Sat 1 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

EU_OUT_NOW wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
Fine
your choice only accessing a limited number percentage of the electorate,
I take a rule of thumb in elections to be 40% gets you elected
you guys are looking to get 40% of the total vote out of 70% the electorate, you won't.
that makes you an irrelevnce.
As to Euro elections in 2009 you were third and now you are less reps in the EU parliament than the other three parties
vote UKIP get gawd knows what
Vote UKIP you know it makes nonsense
I wish you would take your HRT tablets "dontknowynot".
.... you know what you get like if you miss them! Vote UKIP. It's the only way forward. You know it makes SENSE.
there you go trying to make it impossible by alienating women so now you want to get 40% from 35%

Vote ukip you know it makes NONSENSE
[quote][p][bold]EU_OUT_NOW[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: Fine your choice only accessing a limited number percentage of the electorate, I take a rule of thumb in elections to be 40% gets you elected you guys are looking to get 40% of the total vote out of 70% the electorate, you won't. that makes you an irrelevnce. As to Euro elections in 2009 you were third and now you are less reps in the EU parliament than the other three parties vote UKIP get gawd knows what Vote UKIP you know it makes nonsense[/p][/quote]I wish you would take your HRT tablets "dontknowynot". .... you know what you get like if you miss them! Vote UKIP. It's the only way forward. You know it makes SENSE.[/p][/quote]there you go trying to make it impossible by alienating women so now you want to get 40% from 35% Vote ukip you know it makes NONSENSE dontknowynot
  • Score: 0

8:35pm Sat 1 Feb 14

Tony Noeu says...

dontknowynot wrote:
Fine
your choice only accessing a limited number percentage of the electorate,
I take a rule of thumb in elections to be 40% gets you elected
you guys are looking to get 40% of the total vote out of 70% the electorate, you won't.
that makes you an irrelevnce.
As to Euro elections in 2009 you were third and now you are less reps in the EU parliament than the other three parties
vote UKIP get gawd knows what
Vote UKIP you know it makes nonsense
Are you a Disillusioned Conservative by any chance ?
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: Fine your choice only accessing a limited number percentage of the electorate, I take a rule of thumb in elections to be 40% gets you elected you guys are looking to get 40% of the total vote out of 70% the electorate, you won't. that makes you an irrelevnce. As to Euro elections in 2009 you were third and now you are less reps in the EU parliament than the other three parties vote UKIP get gawd knows what Vote UKIP you know it makes nonsense[/p][/quote]Are you a Disillusioned Conservative by any chance ? Tony Noeu
  • Score: -2

8:57pm Sat 1 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

@tony
No I just can't figure out why UKIP want to alienate so many voters.
Muslims (fact is Iraq war was devisive and by continually attacking cllr Khan for his views in 2003/4 UKIP will alienate Muslims.
Now we have them insulting Menopausal and post Menopausal women. if you look at UKIP voters demographic they have most appeal to older age groups so this just seems utterly stupid
@tony No I just can't figure out why UKIP want to alienate so many voters. Muslims (fact is Iraq war was devisive and by continually attacking cllr Khan for his views in 2003/4 UKIP will alienate Muslims. Now we have them insulting Menopausal and post Menopausal women. if you look at UKIP voters demographic they have most appeal to older age groups so this just seems utterly stupid dontknowynot
  • Score: 0

9:07pm Sat 1 Feb 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

Tony Noeu wrote:
Phil

I hope your not letting things go to your head and thus getting above your station. You should be allowing free speech and UKIP and your good self should be denouncing certain views. Our party do not allow extremists and policy does not allow organisations such as BNP to join.

Councillor Asif Khan was on the national executive of hizb-ut-tahrir.

Phil do you agree with the aims and objectives of an organisation associated with extremism and radicalisation ?
Tony,

Firstly, I am totally for free speech. 100%. No room for doubt there.

UKIP has very strong policies on not letting racists into the party and also keeping those with extremist views out of the party. I agree with both of those policies.

I hope that is clear enough.
[quote][p][bold]Tony Noeu[/bold] wrote: Phil I hope your not letting things go to your head and thus getting above your station. You should be allowing free speech and UKIP and your good self should be denouncing certain views. Our party do not allow extremists and policy does not allow organisations such as BNP to join. Councillor Asif Khan was on the national executive of hizb-ut-tahrir. Phil do you agree with the aims and objectives of an organisation associated with extremism and radicalisation ?[/p][/quote]Tony, Firstly, I am totally for free speech. 100%. No room for doubt there. UKIP has very strong policies on not letting racists into the party and also keeping those with extremist views out of the party. I agree with both of those policies. I hope that is clear enough. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: -4

9:10pm Sat 1 Feb 14

Tony Noeu says...

dontknowynot wrote:
@tony
No I just can't figure out why UKIP want to alienate so many voters.
Muslims (fact is Iraq war was devisive and by continually attacking cllr Khan for his views in 2003/4 UKIP will alienate Muslims.
Now we have them insulting Menopausal and post Menopausal women. if you look at UKIP voters demographic they have most appeal to older age groups so this just seems utterly stupid
I've just read through your other posts you must be a friend of Asif Khans ???

In terms of the Iraq war it was a Labour Government that went full bloodied into war with his friend Bush. There were massive protests on the streets and over a million people marched in Central London. So Asif Khan is now essential supporting and is a councillor of the party that bombed Iraq and alienated Muslims (If that's not hypocrisy then I don't know what is).

It seems to me you are confusing ordinary Muslims (i.e those who disagreed with Iraq but do not hold extremist views) with extremists (hizb-ut-tahrir). Please do not be so ignorant.
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: @tony No I just can't figure out why UKIP want to alienate so many voters. Muslims (fact is Iraq war was devisive and by continually attacking cllr Khan for his views in 2003/4 UKIP will alienate Muslims. Now we have them insulting Menopausal and post Menopausal women. if you look at UKIP voters demographic they have most appeal to older age groups so this just seems utterly stupid[/p][/quote]I've just read through your other posts you must be a friend of Asif Khans ??? In terms of the Iraq war it was a Labour Government that went full bloodied into war with his friend Bush. There were massive protests on the streets and over a million people marched in Central London. So Asif Khan is now essential supporting and is a councillor of the party that bombed Iraq and alienated Muslims (If that's not hypocrisy then I don't know what is). It seems to me you are confusing ordinary Muslims (i.e those who disagreed with Iraq but do not hold extremist views) with extremists (hizb-ut-tahrir). Please do not be so ignorant. Tony Noeu
  • Score: 2

9:19pm Sat 1 Feb 14

Tony Noeu says...

Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
Tony Noeu wrote:
Phil

I hope your not letting things go to your head and thus getting above your station. You should be allowing free speech and UKIP and your good self should be denouncing certain views. Our party do not allow extremists and policy does not allow organisations such as BNP to join.

Councillor Asif Khan was on the national executive of hizb-ut-tahrir.

Phil do you agree with the aims and objectives of an organisation associated with extremism and radicalisation ?
Tony,

Firstly, I am totally for free speech. 100%. No room for doubt there.

UKIP has very strong policies on not letting racists into the party and also keeping those with extremist views out of the party. I agree with both of those policies.

I hope that is clear enough.
Thank you Phil !
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tony Noeu[/bold] wrote: Phil I hope your not letting things go to your head and thus getting above your station. You should be allowing free speech and UKIP and your good self should be denouncing certain views. Our party do not allow extremists and policy does not allow organisations such as BNP to join. Councillor Asif Khan was on the national executive of hizb-ut-tahrir. Phil do you agree with the aims and objectives of an organisation associated with extremism and radicalisation ?[/p][/quote]Tony, Firstly, I am totally for free speech. 100%. No room for doubt there. UKIP has very strong policies on not letting racists into the party and also keeping those with extremist views out of the party. I agree with both of those policies. I hope that is clear enough.[/p][/quote]Thank you Phil ! Tony Noeu
  • Score: 2

9:36pm Sat 1 Feb 14

EU_OUT_NOW says...

dontknowynot wrote:
EU_OUT_NOW wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
Fine
your choice only accessing a limited number percentage of the electorate,
I take a rule of thumb in elections to be 40% gets you elected
you guys are looking to get 40% of the total vote out of 70% the electorate, you won't.
that makes you an irrelevnce.
As to Euro elections in 2009 you were third and now you are less reps in the EU parliament than the other three parties
vote UKIP get gawd knows what
Vote UKIP you know it makes nonsense
I wish you would take your HRT tablets "dontknowynot".

.... you know what you get like if you miss them! Vote UKIP. It's the only way forward. You know it makes SENSE.
there you go trying to make it impossible by alienating women so now you want to get 40% from 35%

Vote ukip you know it makes NONSENSE
Don't be silly, the wife takes HRT, gets hot flushes, mood swings. It's quite normal, but then again you should know, shouldn't you?....... UKIP the way forward. UKIP for the UK. The only party who cares about the British people!
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]EU_OUT_NOW[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: Fine your choice only accessing a limited number percentage of the electorate, I take a rule of thumb in elections to be 40% gets you elected you guys are looking to get 40% of the total vote out of 70% the electorate, you won't. that makes you an irrelevnce. As to Euro elections in 2009 you were third and now you are less reps in the EU parliament than the other three parties vote UKIP get gawd knows what Vote UKIP you know it makes nonsense[/p][/quote]I wish you would take your HRT tablets "dontknowynot". .... you know what you get like if you miss them! Vote UKIP. It's the only way forward. You know it makes SENSE.[/p][/quote]there you go trying to make it impossible by alienating women so now you want to get 40% from 35% Vote ukip you know it makes NONSENSE[/p][/quote]Don't be silly, the wife takes HRT, gets hot flushes, mood swings. It's quite normal, but then again you should know, shouldn't you?....... UKIP the way forward. UKIP for the UK. The only party who cares about the British people! EU_OUT_NOW
  • Score: 2

9:41pm Sat 1 Feb 14

Jack18 says...

DKYN

I disagree about the comment about voting UKIP is nonsense. In actual fact it would be common sense which the main three parties, which shows they are scared of UKIP. On a local scale, if you was to vote for UKIP, they would give you the power to decide where your money should be spent. If you look at it nationally, the benefits of leaving the EU outweighs the benefits of staying in the EU.
DKYN I disagree about the comment about voting UKIP is nonsense. In actual fact it would be common sense which the main three parties, which shows they are scared of UKIP. On a local scale, if you was to vote for UKIP, they would give you the power to decide where your money should be spent. If you look at it nationally, the benefits of leaving the EU outweighs the benefits of staying in the EU. Jack18
  • Score: 0

9:54pm Sat 1 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

Tony Noeu wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
@tony
No I just can't figure out why UKIP want to alienate so many voters.
Muslims (fact is Iraq war was devisive and by continually attacking cllr Khan for his views in 2003/4 UKIP will alienate Muslims.
Now we have them insulting Menopausal and post Menopausal women. if you look at UKIP voters demographic they have most appeal to older age groups so this just seems utterly stupid
I've just read through your other posts you must be a friend of Asif Khans ???

In terms of the Iraq war it was a Labour Government that went full bloodied into war with his friend Bush. There were massive protests on the streets and over a million people marched in Central London. So Asif Khan is now essential supporting and is a councillor of the party that bombed Iraq and alienated Muslims (If that's not hypocrisy then I don't know what is).

It seems to me you are confusing ordinary Muslims (i.e those who disagreed with Iraq but do not hold extremist views) with extremists (hizb-ut-tahrir). Please do not be so ignorant.
nope just step back a minute
Firstly NO TORY SUPPORT FOR BLAIR NO WAR
as illustrated by the division
http://www.parliamen
t.uk/documents/docum
ents/upload/snsg-021
09.pdf
Secondly what I am saying is That many non extreamist would say or think under the circumstances it was understandable for people to hold extremist views. Not confusing one thing with the other at all just saying that moderates would have some sympathy for people that held extremist views.
Thirdly It was the left of the Labour party that opposed the Iraq war, the likes of Galloway were crucified for their opposition, Dennis Skinner was opposed to the war as was Robin **** who resigned from gov. So it as and is not hypocritical for people opposed to the gulf war to be in the Labour party.
Fourthly I would reckon that having these people in the Labour party helped prevent us going to another war in Syria, In short learning from error is not the same thing.
.
[quote][p][bold]Tony Noeu[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: @tony No I just can't figure out why UKIP want to alienate so many voters. Muslims (fact is Iraq war was devisive and by continually attacking cllr Khan for his views in 2003/4 UKIP will alienate Muslims. Now we have them insulting Menopausal and post Menopausal women. if you look at UKIP voters demographic they have most appeal to older age groups so this just seems utterly stupid[/p][/quote]I've just read through your other posts you must be a friend of Asif Khans ??? In terms of the Iraq war it was a Labour Government that went full bloodied into war with his friend Bush. There were massive protests on the streets and over a million people marched in Central London. So Asif Khan is now essential supporting and is a councillor of the party that bombed Iraq and alienated Muslims (If that's not hypocrisy then I don't know what is). It seems to me you are confusing ordinary Muslims (i.e those who disagreed with Iraq but do not hold extremist views) with extremists (hizb-ut-tahrir). Please do not be so ignorant.[/p][/quote]nope just step back a minute Firstly NO TORY SUPPORT FOR BLAIR NO WAR as illustrated by the division http://www.parliamen t.uk/documents/docum ents/upload/snsg-021 09.pdf Secondly what I am saying is That many non extreamist would say or think under the circumstances it was understandable for people to hold extremist views. Not confusing one thing with the other at all just saying that moderates would have some sympathy for people that held extremist views. Thirdly It was the left of the Labour party that opposed the Iraq war, the likes of Galloway were crucified for their opposition, Dennis Skinner was opposed to the war as was Robin **** who resigned from gov. So it as and is not hypocritical for people opposed to the gulf war to be in the Labour party. Fourthly I would reckon that having these people in the Labour party helped prevent us going to another war in Syria, In short learning from error is not the same thing. . dontknowynot
  • Score: -1

10:29pm Sat 1 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

Jack18 wrote:
DKYN

I disagree about the comment about voting UKIP is nonsense. In actual fact it would be common sense which the main three parties, which shows they are scared of UKIP. On a local scale, if you was to vote for UKIP, they would give you the power to decide where your money should be spent. If you look at it nationally, the benefits of leaving the EU outweighs the benefits of staying in the EU.
what UKIP would be common sense the one that thinks handguns should be licensed or the one that thinks there is a conspiracy of catholics, gays and communists in Scotland, or the one that thinks its own 2010 Manifesto is nonsense , or the one whos leader put his name to it without reading it.

Vote UKIP get NONSENSE
[quote][p][bold]Jack18[/bold] wrote: DKYN I disagree about the comment about voting UKIP is nonsense. In actual fact it would be common sense which the main three parties, which shows they are scared of UKIP. On a local scale, if you was to vote for UKIP, they would give you the power to decide where your money should be spent. If you look at it nationally, the benefits of leaving the EU outweighs the benefits of staying in the EU.[/p][/quote]what UKIP would be common sense the one that thinks handguns should be licensed or the one that thinks there is a conspiracy of catholics, gays and communists in Scotland, or the one that thinks its own 2010 Manifesto is nonsense , or the one whos leader put his name to it without reading it. Vote UKIP get NONSENSE dontknowynot
  • Score: 1

10:53pm Sat 1 Feb 14

Jack18 says...

dontknowynot wrote:
Jack18 wrote:
DKYN

I disagree about the comment about voting UKIP is nonsense. In actual fact it would be common sense which the main three parties, which shows they are scared of UKIP. On a local scale, if you was to vote for UKIP, they would give you the power to decide where your money should be spent. If you look at it nationally, the benefits of leaving the EU outweighs the benefits of staying in the EU.
what UKIP would be common sense the one that thinks handguns should be licensed or the one that thinks there is a conspiracy of catholics, gays and communists in Scotland, or the one that thinks its own 2010 Manifesto is nonsense , or the one whos leader put his name to it without reading it.

Vote UKIP get NONSENSE
If you vote for Lib Dems you get complete nonsense.
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jack18[/bold] wrote: DKYN I disagree about the comment about voting UKIP is nonsense. In actual fact it would be common sense which the main three parties, which shows they are scared of UKIP. On a local scale, if you was to vote for UKIP, they would give you the power to decide where your money should be spent. If you look at it nationally, the benefits of leaving the EU outweighs the benefits of staying in the EU.[/p][/quote]what UKIP would be common sense the one that thinks handguns should be licensed or the one that thinks there is a conspiracy of catholics, gays and communists in Scotland, or the one that thinks its own 2010 Manifesto is nonsense , or the one whos leader put his name to it without reading it. Vote UKIP get NONSENSE[/p][/quote]If you vote for Lib Dems you get complete nonsense. Jack18
  • Score: 0

11:02pm Sat 1 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

So on the tally of people UKIP are alienating we can add the Catholics,
So we have non white british
Catholics
the left
Muslims
women
anyone who has ever changed their mind
People who are five foot ten and three quarters
(the last one is a joke(well I think it is))
So on the tally of people UKIP are alienating we can add the Catholics, So we have non white british Catholics the left Muslims women anyone who has ever changed their mind People who are five foot ten and three quarters (the last one is a joke(well I think it is)) dontknowynot
  • Score: 3

11:05pm Sat 1 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

Jack18 wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
Jack18 wrote:
DKYN

I disagree about the comment about voting UKIP is nonsense. In actual fact it would be common sense which the main three parties, which shows they are scared of UKIP. On a local scale, if you was to vote for UKIP, they would give you the power to decide where your money should be spent. If you look at it nationally, the benefits of leaving the EU outweighs the benefits of staying in the EU.
what UKIP would be common sense the one that thinks handguns should be licensed or the one that thinks there is a conspiracy of catholics, gays and communists in Scotland, or the one that thinks its own 2010 Manifesto is nonsense , or the one whos leader put his name to it without reading it.

Vote UKIP get NONSENSE
If you vote for Lib Dems you get complete nonsense.
and if you vote UKIP you get Libdems in Watford
[quote][p][bold]Jack18[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jack18[/bold] wrote: DKYN I disagree about the comment about voting UKIP is nonsense. In actual fact it would be common sense which the main three parties, which shows they are scared of UKIP. On a local scale, if you was to vote for UKIP, they would give you the power to decide where your money should be spent. If you look at it nationally, the benefits of leaving the EU outweighs the benefits of staying in the EU.[/p][/quote]what UKIP would be common sense the one that thinks handguns should be licensed or the one that thinks there is a conspiracy of catholics, gays and communists in Scotland, or the one that thinks its own 2010 Manifesto is nonsense , or the one whos leader put his name to it without reading it. Vote UKIP get NONSENSE[/p][/quote]If you vote for Lib Dems you get complete nonsense.[/p][/quote]and if you vote UKIP you get Libdems in Watford dontknowynot
  • Score: 2

11:09pm Sat 1 Feb 14

Tony Noeu says...

dontknowynot wrote:
Tony Noeu wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
@tony
No I just can't figure out why UKIP want to alienate so many voters.
Muslims (fact is Iraq war was devisive and by continually attacking cllr Khan for his views in 2003/4 UKIP will alienate Muslims.
Now we have them insulting Menopausal and post Menopausal women. if you look at UKIP voters demographic they have most appeal to older age groups so this just seems utterly stupid
I've just read through your other posts you must be a friend of Asif Khans ???

In terms of the Iraq war it was a Labour Government that went full bloodied into war with his friend Bush. There were massive protests on the streets and over a million people marched in Central London. So Asif Khan is now essential supporting and is a councillor of the party that bombed Iraq and alienated Muslims (If that's not hypocrisy then I don't know what is).

It seems to me you are confusing ordinary Muslims (i.e those who disagreed with Iraq but do not hold extremist views) with extremists (hizb-ut-tahrir). Please do not be so ignorant.
nope just step back a minute
Firstly NO TORY SUPPORT FOR BLAIR NO WAR
as illustrated by the division
http://www.parliamen

t.uk/documents/docum

ents/upload/snsg-021

09.pdf
Secondly what I am saying is That many non extreamist would say or think under the circumstances it was understandable for people to hold extremist views. Not confusing one thing with the other at all just saying that moderates would have some sympathy for people that held extremist views.
Thirdly It was the left of the Labour party that opposed the Iraq war, the likes of Galloway were crucified for their opposition, Dennis Skinner was opposed to the war as was Robin **** who resigned from gov. So it as and is not hypocritical for people opposed to the gulf war to be in the Labour party.
Fourthly I would reckon that having these people in the Labour party helped prevent us going to another war in Syria, In short learning from error is not the same thing.
.
Your first point is noted though I don't know the actually point you are trying to make here other than to distance labour from the decision to go to war.

Second point, you are with respect talking a load of nonsense. Moderate Muslims have NO sympathy for people who hold extremists views. In fact they detest Muslims with extremist views as it reflects badly on the vast majority of Muslims who are ordinary people just trying to get on with their life and and live and work in peace. In fact your suggestion is ludicrous and insulting.
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tony Noeu[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: @tony No I just can't figure out why UKIP want to alienate so many voters. Muslims (fact is Iraq war was devisive and by continually attacking cllr Khan for his views in 2003/4 UKIP will alienate Muslims. Now we have them insulting Menopausal and post Menopausal women. if you look at UKIP voters demographic they have most appeal to older age groups so this just seems utterly stupid[/p][/quote]I've just read through your other posts you must be a friend of Asif Khans ??? In terms of the Iraq war it was a Labour Government that went full bloodied into war with his friend Bush. There were massive protests on the streets and over a million people marched in Central London. So Asif Khan is now essential supporting and is a councillor of the party that bombed Iraq and alienated Muslims (If that's not hypocrisy then I don't know what is). It seems to me you are confusing ordinary Muslims (i.e those who disagreed with Iraq but do not hold extremist views) with extremists (hizb-ut-tahrir). Please do not be so ignorant.[/p][/quote]nope just step back a minute Firstly NO TORY SUPPORT FOR BLAIR NO WAR as illustrated by the division http://www.parliamen t.uk/documents/docum ents/upload/snsg-021 09.pdf Secondly what I am saying is That many non extreamist would say or think under the circumstances it was understandable for people to hold extremist views. Not confusing one thing with the other at all just saying that moderates would have some sympathy for people that held extremist views. Thirdly It was the left of the Labour party that opposed the Iraq war, the likes of Galloway were crucified for their opposition, Dennis Skinner was opposed to the war as was Robin **** who resigned from gov. So it as and is not hypocritical for people opposed to the gulf war to be in the Labour party. Fourthly I would reckon that having these people in the Labour party helped prevent us going to another war in Syria, In short learning from error is not the same thing. .[/p][/quote]Your first point is noted though I don't know the actually point you are trying to make here other than to distance labour from the decision to go to war. Second point, you are with respect talking a load of nonsense. Moderate Muslims have NO sympathy for people who hold extremists views. In fact they detest Muslims with extremist views as it reflects badly on the vast majority of Muslims who are ordinary people just trying to get on with their life and and live and work in peace. In fact your suggestion is ludicrous and insulting. Tony Noeu
  • Score: 3

11:13pm Sat 1 Feb 14

Tony Noeu says...

dontknowynot wrote:
Jack18 wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
Jack18 wrote:
DKYN

I disagree about the comment about voting UKIP is nonsense. In actual fact it would be common sense which the main three parties, which shows they are scared of UKIP. On a local scale, if you was to vote for UKIP, they would give you the power to decide where your money should be spent. If you look at it nationally, the benefits of leaving the EU outweighs the benefits of staying in the EU.
what UKIP would be common sense the one that thinks handguns should be licensed or the one that thinks there is a conspiracy of catholics, gays and communists in Scotland, or the one that thinks its own 2010 Manifesto is nonsense , or the one whos leader put his name to it without reading it.

Vote UKIP get NONSENSE
If you vote for Lib Dems you get complete nonsense.
and if you vote UKIP you get Libdems in Watford
At least the Lib Dems all voted against War in Iraq.
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jack18[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jack18[/bold] wrote: DKYN I disagree about the comment about voting UKIP is nonsense. In actual fact it would be common sense which the main three parties, which shows they are scared of UKIP. On a local scale, if you was to vote for UKIP, they would give you the power to decide where your money should be spent. If you look at it nationally, the benefits of leaving the EU outweighs the benefits of staying in the EU.[/p][/quote]what UKIP would be common sense the one that thinks handguns should be licensed or the one that thinks there is a conspiracy of catholics, gays and communists in Scotland, or the one that thinks its own 2010 Manifesto is nonsense , or the one whos leader put his name to it without reading it. Vote UKIP get NONSENSE[/p][/quote]If you vote for Lib Dems you get complete nonsense.[/p][/quote]and if you vote UKIP you get Libdems in Watford[/p][/quote]At least the Lib Dems all voted against War in Iraq. Tony Noeu
  • Score: 1

11:14pm Sat 1 Feb 14

Jack18 says...

dontknowynot wrote:
Jack18 wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
Jack18 wrote:
DKYN

I disagree about the comment about voting UKIP is nonsense. In actual fact it would be common sense which the main three parties, which shows they are scared of UKIP. On a local scale, if you was to vote for UKIP, they would give you the power to decide where your money should be spent. If you look at it nationally, the benefits of leaving the EU outweighs the benefits of staying in the EU.
what UKIP would be common sense the one that thinks handguns should be licensed or the one that thinks there is a conspiracy of catholics, gays and communists in Scotland, or the one that thinks its own 2010 Manifesto is nonsense , or the one whos leader put his name to it without reading it.

Vote UKIP get NONSENSE
If you vote for Lib Dems you get complete nonsense.
and if you vote UKIP you get Libdems in Watford
Ok then, say you voted UKIP and they are in power, what would you like to spend your money for the town?
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jack18[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jack18[/bold] wrote: DKYN I disagree about the comment about voting UKIP is nonsense. In actual fact it would be common sense which the main three parties, which shows they are scared of UKIP. On a local scale, if you was to vote for UKIP, they would give you the power to decide where your money should be spent. If you look at it nationally, the benefits of leaving the EU outweighs the benefits of staying in the EU.[/p][/quote]what UKIP would be common sense the one that thinks handguns should be licensed or the one that thinks there is a conspiracy of catholics, gays and communists in Scotland, or the one that thinks its own 2010 Manifesto is nonsense , or the one whos leader put his name to it without reading it. Vote UKIP get NONSENSE[/p][/quote]If you vote for Lib Dems you get complete nonsense.[/p][/quote]and if you vote UKIP you get Libdems in Watford[/p][/quote]Ok then, say you voted UKIP and they are in power, what would you like to spend your money for the town? Jack18
  • Score: 1

12:05am Sun 2 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

To all MY UKIP devotees, now I have your attention
I don’t know your candidate personally I just disagree with the UKIP party and everything it stands for.
My reasons for this are numerous.
As a party it is not inclusive on the grounds of race, sex religion or sexual orientation, this is evidenced on a national level by them not having one non white non male MEP and by the same being true of the committee of the local party.
Another is that UKIP Watford seem to be under the misapprehension that Asif Khan is Mayor, he is not, nor is he up for re election nor is the Labour party the ruling party in Watford, so why all the attacks on him; the enemy is over there in the other direction.
There is also the tendency to attack me as some sort of stereotypical post-menopausal woman, something I may or may not be, but your derogatory comments clearly are sexist.
Now I don’t know this Phil Cox and whilst I might josh and joke I have not been insulting to him personally, I have however given examples of my concern and yes dislike of your party.
When you had policys I disagreed with them, thought they were rubbish, it now appears your leader agrees with me, the only problem is he has come up with other rubbish policies such as Handguns. He describes the legislation as knee jerk and well he is right but as (I think) David Mellor said when the mass murder brought in the ban “a knee jerk reaction can be entirely the right response and it is now”
Another gem is your partys climate change denial, it is nonsense plain and simple and locally we better accept it is happening and deal with the consequences.
Then there is your partys commitment to fracking, yes we have no shale gas here but if things go wrong adjacent to us surly there will be knock on consequences even if only more demand for water we would otherwise have to ourselves.
To all MY UKIP devotees, now I have your attention I don’t know your candidate personally I just disagree with the UKIP party and everything it stands for. My reasons for this are numerous. As a party it is not inclusive on the grounds of race, sex religion or sexual orientation, this is evidenced on a national level by them not having one non white non male MEP and by the same being true of the committee of the local party. Another is that UKIP Watford seem to be under the misapprehension that Asif Khan is Mayor, he is not, nor is he up for re election nor is the Labour party the ruling party in Watford, so why all the attacks on him; the enemy is over there in the other direction. There is also the tendency to attack me as some sort of stereotypical post-menopausal woman, something I may or may not be, but your derogatory comments clearly are sexist. Now I don’t know this Phil Cox and whilst I might josh and joke I have not been insulting to him personally, I have however given examples of my concern and yes dislike of your party. When you had policys I disagreed with them, thought they were rubbish, it now appears your leader agrees with me, the only problem is he has come up with other rubbish policies such as Handguns. He describes the legislation as knee jerk and well he is right but as (I think) David Mellor said when the mass murder brought in the ban “a knee jerk reaction can be entirely the right response and it is now” Another gem is your partys climate change denial, it is nonsense plain and simple and locally we better accept it is happening and deal with the consequences. Then there is your partys commitment to fracking, yes we have no shale gas here but if things go wrong adjacent to us surly there will be knock on consequences even if only more demand for water we would otherwise have to ourselves. dontknowynot
  • Score: 0

12:07am Sun 2 Feb 14

D_Penn says...

dontknowynot wrote:
So on the tally of people UKIP are alienating we can add the Catholics,
So we have non white british
Catholics
the left
Muslims
women
anyone who has ever changed their mind
People who are five foot ten and three quarters
(the last one is a joke(well I think it is))
The only person we've alienated is you and your precious Labour.

Your attacks on UKIP can be seen by all to be no more than the last act of the desperate. You are running scared because we have shown up your contempt for the electorate. Even now, your smug, useless leadership is voting against having a referendum on EU membership. You lot think you're so much better than the electorate that you do not want them to have a vote. The truth is that you really believe your own supporters are not bright enough to think for themselves, as Brown proved when he attacked a woman as bigotted because she was worried about mass immigration.

No wonder so many of your followers have torn up their membership cards, so disgusted were they last time Labour was in power. Some have now joined UKIP because they can see we are the party that really cares about people and the country where your Labour only cares about getting elected and then making money, like multi-millionaire Blair. Labour the party for the workers? Don't make me laugh.
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: So on the tally of people UKIP are alienating we can add the Catholics, So we have non white british Catholics the left Muslims women anyone who has ever changed their mind People who are five foot ten and three quarters (the last one is a joke(well I think it is))[/p][/quote]The only person we've alienated is you and your precious Labour. Your attacks on UKIP can be seen by all to be no more than the last act of the desperate. You are running scared because we have shown up your contempt for the electorate. Even now, your smug, useless leadership is voting against having a referendum on EU membership. You lot think you're so much better than the electorate that you do not want them to have a vote. The truth is that you really believe your own supporters are not bright enough to think for themselves, as Brown proved when he attacked a woman as bigotted because she was worried about mass immigration. No wonder so many of your followers have torn up their membership cards, so disgusted were they last time Labour was in power. Some have now joined UKIP because they can see we are the party that really cares about people and the country where your Labour only cares about getting elected and then making money, like multi-millionaire Blair. Labour the party for the workers? Don't make me laugh. D_Penn
  • Score: -1

12:24am Sun 2 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

Tony Noeu wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
Tony Noeu wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
@tony
No I just can't figure out why UKIP want to alienate so many voters.
Muslims (fact is Iraq war was devisive and by continually attacking cllr Khan for his views in 2003/4 UKIP will alienate Muslims.
Now we have them insulting Menopausal and post Menopausal women. if you look at UKIP voters demographic they have most appeal to older age groups so this just seems utterly stupid
I've just read through your other posts you must be a friend of Asif Khans ???

In terms of the Iraq war it was a Labour Government that went full bloodied into war with his friend Bush. There were massive protests on the streets and over a million people marched in Central London. So Asif Khan is now essential supporting and is a councillor of the party that bombed Iraq and alienated Muslims (If that's not hypocrisy then I don't know what is).

It seems to me you are confusing ordinary Muslims (i.e those who disagreed with Iraq but do not hold extremist views) with extremists (hizb-ut-tahrir). Please do not be so ignorant.
nope just step back a minute
Firstly NO TORY SUPPORT FOR BLAIR NO WAR
as illustrated by the division
http://www.parliamen


t.uk/documents/docum


ents/upload/snsg-021


09.pdf
Secondly what I am saying is That many non extreamist would say or think under the circumstances it was understandable for people to hold extremist views. Not confusing one thing with the other at all just saying that moderates would have some sympathy for people that held extremist views.
Thirdly It was the left of the Labour party that opposed the Iraq war, the likes of Galloway were crucified for their opposition, Dennis Skinner was opposed to the war as was Robin **** who resigned from gov. So it as and is not hypocritical for people opposed to the gulf war to be in the Labour party.
Fourthly I would reckon that having these people in the Labour party helped prevent us going to another war in Syria, In short learning from error is not the same thing.
.
Your first point is noted though I don't know the actually point you are trying to make here other than to distance labour from the decision to go to war.

Second point, you are with respect talking a load of nonsense. Moderate Muslims have NO sympathy for people who hold extremists views. In fact they detest Muslims with extremist views as it reflects badly on the vast majority of Muslims who are ordinary people just trying to get on with their life and and live and work in peace. In fact your suggestion is ludicrous and insulting.
On my first point
a) if your party does something you disagree with it is an act of integrety to stay within it to change the party
b) irrespective of thoughts on Labour, Blair, New Labour the Torys there was a failure of Parliament when we went to war with Iraq.
On my second point
I disagree with you in the circumstances of 2003 and 2004 a polarization and radicalization of Muslim views was entirely understandable not just by Muslims, as was the radicalization and polarization that followed Bloody Sunday
[quote][p][bold]Tony Noeu[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tony Noeu[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: @tony No I just can't figure out why UKIP want to alienate so many voters. Muslims (fact is Iraq war was devisive and by continually attacking cllr Khan for his views in 2003/4 UKIP will alienate Muslims. Now we have them insulting Menopausal and post Menopausal women. if you look at UKIP voters demographic they have most appeal to older age groups so this just seems utterly stupid[/p][/quote]I've just read through your other posts you must be a friend of Asif Khans ??? In terms of the Iraq war it was a Labour Government that went full bloodied into war with his friend Bush. There were massive protests on the streets and over a million people marched in Central London. So Asif Khan is now essential supporting and is a councillor of the party that bombed Iraq and alienated Muslims (If that's not hypocrisy then I don't know what is). It seems to me you are confusing ordinary Muslims (i.e those who disagreed with Iraq but do not hold extremist views) with extremists (hizb-ut-tahrir). Please do not be so ignorant.[/p][/quote]nope just step back a minute Firstly NO TORY SUPPORT FOR BLAIR NO WAR as illustrated by the division http://www.parliamen t.uk/documents/docum ents/upload/snsg-021 09.pdf Secondly what I am saying is That many non extreamist would say or think under the circumstances it was understandable for people to hold extremist views. Not confusing one thing with the other at all just saying that moderates would have some sympathy for people that held extremist views. Thirdly It was the left of the Labour party that opposed the Iraq war, the likes of Galloway were crucified for their opposition, Dennis Skinner was opposed to the war as was Robin **** who resigned from gov. So it as and is not hypocritical for people opposed to the gulf war to be in the Labour party. Fourthly I would reckon that having these people in the Labour party helped prevent us going to another war in Syria, In short learning from error is not the same thing. .[/p][/quote]Your first point is noted though I don't know the actually point you are trying to make here other than to distance labour from the decision to go to war. Second point, you are with respect talking a load of nonsense. Moderate Muslims have NO sympathy for people who hold extremists views. In fact they detest Muslims with extremist views as it reflects badly on the vast majority of Muslims who are ordinary people just trying to get on with their life and and live and work in peace. In fact your suggestion is ludicrous and insulting.[/p][/quote]On my first point a) if your party does something you disagree with it is an act of integrety to stay within it to change the party b) irrespective of thoughts on Labour, Blair, New Labour the Torys there was a failure of Parliament when we went to war with Iraq. On my second point I disagree with you in the circumstances of 2003 and 2004 a polarization and radicalization of Muslim views was entirely understandable not just by Muslims, as was the radicalization and polarization that followed Bloody Sunday dontknowynot
  • Score: 2

12:27am Sun 2 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

Tony Noeu wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
Jack18 wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
Jack18 wrote:
DKYN

I disagree about the comment about voting UKIP is nonsense. In actual fact it would be common sense which the main three parties, which shows they are scared of UKIP. On a local scale, if you was to vote for UKIP, they would give you the power to decide where your money should be spent. If you look at it nationally, the benefits of leaving the EU outweighs the benefits of staying in the EU.
what UKIP would be common sense the one that thinks handguns should be licensed or the one that thinks there is a conspiracy of catholics, gays and communists in Scotland, or the one that thinks its own 2010 Manifesto is nonsense , or the one whos leader put his name to it without reading it.

Vote UKIP get NONSENSE
If you vote for Lib Dems you get complete nonsense.
and if you vote UKIP you get Libdems in Watford
At least the Lib Dems all voted against War in Iraq.
yep in 2003 under Charles Kennedy
[quote][p][bold]Tony Noeu[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jack18[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jack18[/bold] wrote: DKYN I disagree about the comment about voting UKIP is nonsense. In actual fact it would be common sense which the main three parties, which shows they are scared of UKIP. On a local scale, if you was to vote for UKIP, they would give you the power to decide where your money should be spent. If you look at it nationally, the benefits of leaving the EU outweighs the benefits of staying in the EU.[/p][/quote]what UKIP would be common sense the one that thinks handguns should be licensed or the one that thinks there is a conspiracy of catholics, gays and communists in Scotland, or the one that thinks its own 2010 Manifesto is nonsense , or the one whos leader put his name to it without reading it. Vote UKIP get NONSENSE[/p][/quote]If you vote for Lib Dems you get complete nonsense.[/p][/quote]and if you vote UKIP you get Libdems in Watford[/p][/quote]At least the Lib Dems all voted against War in Iraq.[/p][/quote]yep in 2003 under Charles Kennedy dontknowynot
  • Score: 2

12:28am Sun 2 Feb 14

D_Penn says...

@dontknowynot

You said: "There is also the tendency to attack me as some sort of stereotypical post-menopausal woman, something I may or may not be, but your derogatory comments clearly are sexist."

Playing the 'sexist' and 'ageist' card are we now? How cliched and typical of left-wing ideologists who try to deflect when losing arguments. It's pathetic.

For your information, I had no idea about who you are personally until you posted this. I only knew you were a Labour supporter. So your comment is utter rubbish.

I have offered you the chance to meet UKIP people, but no, you don't want to do that. You pontificate from your ivory tower because 'You knows what you know.'.

What I think is that you're terrified to meet us. You are scared that you might actually like some of us when you meet us. You worry that you might find our common sense and straight talking approach would dismantle your ingrained biases and get you to question your beliefs, particularly your many misconceptions about UKIP. Until you are willing to have proper dialogue face to face with real people I'm afraid you will remain ignorant and continue to demostrate that ignorance in your postings. And just to be clear, that 'derogatory' comment has nothing to do with your age or gender. It is because you are a political bigot.
@dontknowynot You said: "There is also the tendency to attack me as some sort of stereotypical post-menopausal woman, something I may or may not be, but your derogatory comments clearly are sexist." Playing the 'sexist' and 'ageist' card are we now? How cliched and typical of left-wing ideologists who try to deflect when losing arguments. It's pathetic. For your information, I had no idea about who you are personally until you posted this. I only knew you were a Labour supporter. So your comment is utter rubbish. I have offered you the chance to meet UKIP people, but no, you don't want to do that. You pontificate from your ivory tower because 'You knows what you know.'. What I think is that you're terrified to meet us. You are scared that you might actually like some of us when you meet us. You worry that you might find our common sense and straight talking approach would dismantle your ingrained biases and get you to question your beliefs, particularly your many misconceptions about UKIP. Until you are willing to have proper dialogue face to face with real people I'm afraid you will remain ignorant and continue to demostrate that ignorance in your postings. And just to be clear, that 'derogatory' comment has nothing to do with your age or gender. It is because you are a political bigot. D_Penn
  • Score: 0

12:39am Sun 2 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

D_Penn wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
So on the tally of people UKIP are alienating we can add the Catholics,
So we have non white british
Catholics
the left
Muslims
women
anyone who has ever changed their mind
People who are five foot ten and three quarters
(the last one is a joke(well I think it is))
The only person we've alienated is you and your precious Labour.

Your attacks on UKIP can be seen by all to be no more than the last act of the desperate. You are running scared because we have shown up your contempt for the electorate. Even now, your smug, useless leadership is voting against having a referendum on EU membership. You lot think you're so much better than the electorate that you do not want them to have a vote. The truth is that you really believe your own supporters are not bright enough to think for themselves, as Brown proved when he attacked a woman as bigotted because she was worried about mass immigration.

No wonder so many of your followers have torn up their membership cards, so disgusted were they last time Labour was in power. Some have now joined UKIP because they can see we are the party that really cares about people and the country where your Labour only cares about getting elected and then making money, like multi-millionaire Blair. Labour the party for the workers? Don't make me laugh.
yer yer
so you concead I am correct in what I say and then rattle of your abuse, rhetoric, and irrelevances next please
[quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: So on the tally of people UKIP are alienating we can add the Catholics, So we have non white british Catholics the left Muslims women anyone who has ever changed their mind People who are five foot ten and three quarters (the last one is a joke(well I think it is))[/p][/quote]The only person we've alienated is you and your precious Labour. Your attacks on UKIP can be seen by all to be no more than the last act of the desperate. You are running scared because we have shown up your contempt for the electorate. Even now, your smug, useless leadership is voting against having a referendum on EU membership. You lot think you're so much better than the electorate that you do not want them to have a vote. The truth is that you really believe your own supporters are not bright enough to think for themselves, as Brown proved when he attacked a woman as bigotted because she was worried about mass immigration. No wonder so many of your followers have torn up their membership cards, so disgusted were they last time Labour was in power. Some have now joined UKIP because they can see we are the party that really cares about people and the country where your Labour only cares about getting elected and then making money, like multi-millionaire Blair. Labour the party for the workers? Don't make me laugh.[/p][/quote]yer yer so you concead I am correct in what I say and then rattle of your abuse, rhetoric, and irrelevances next please dontknowynot
  • Score: 1

12:40am Sun 2 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

dontknowynot wrote:
To all MY UKIP devotees, now I have your attention
I don’t know your candidate personally I just disagree with the UKIP party and everything it stands for.
My reasons for this are numerous.
As a party it is not inclusive on the grounds of race, sex religion or sexual orientation, this is evidenced on a national level by them not having one non white non male MEP and by the same being true of the committee of the local party.
Another is that UKIP Watford seem to be under the misapprehension that Asif Khan is Mayor, he is not, nor is he up for re election nor is the Labour party the ruling party in Watford, so why all the attacks on him; the enemy is over there in the other direction.
There is also the tendency to attack me as some sort of stereotypical post-menopausal woman, something I may or may not be, but your derogatory comments clearly are sexist.
Now I don’t know this Phil Cox and whilst I might josh and joke I have not been insulting to him personally, I have however given examples of my concern and yes dislike of your party.
When you had policys I disagreed with them, thought they were rubbish, it now appears your leader agrees with me, the only problem is he has come up with other rubbish policies such as Handguns. He describes the legislation as knee jerk and well he is right but as (I think) David Mellor said when the mass murder brought in the ban “a knee jerk reaction can be entirely the right response and it is now”
Another gem is your partys climate change denial, it is nonsense plain and simple and locally we better accept it is happening and deal with the consequences.
Then there is your partys commitment to fracking, yes we have no shale gas here but if things go wrong adjacent to us surly there will be knock on consequences even if only more demand for water we would otherwise have to ourselves.
because you wont answer a single point and have no answers
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: To all MY UKIP devotees, now I have your attention I don’t know your candidate personally I just disagree with the UKIP party and everything it stands for. My reasons for this are numerous. As a party it is not inclusive on the grounds of race, sex religion or sexual orientation, this is evidenced on a national level by them not having one non white non male MEP and by the same being true of the committee of the local party. Another is that UKIP Watford seem to be under the misapprehension that Asif Khan is Mayor, he is not, nor is he up for re election nor is the Labour party the ruling party in Watford, so why all the attacks on him; the enemy is over there in the other direction. There is also the tendency to attack me as some sort of stereotypical post-menopausal woman, something I may or may not be, but your derogatory comments clearly are sexist. Now I don’t know this Phil Cox and whilst I might josh and joke I have not been insulting to him personally, I have however given examples of my concern and yes dislike of your party. When you had policys I disagreed with them, thought they were rubbish, it now appears your leader agrees with me, the only problem is he has come up with other rubbish policies such as Handguns. He describes the legislation as knee jerk and well he is right but as (I think) David Mellor said when the mass murder brought in the ban “a knee jerk reaction can be entirely the right response and it is now” Another gem is your partys climate change denial, it is nonsense plain and simple and locally we better accept it is happening and deal with the consequences. Then there is your partys commitment to fracking, yes we have no shale gas here but if things go wrong adjacent to us surly there will be knock on consequences even if only more demand for water we would otherwise have to ourselves.[/p][/quote]because you wont answer a single point and have no answers dontknowynot
  • Score: 4

7:44am Sun 2 Feb 14

trebleywebley says...

Im glad i havent entered into the debate.
It's all been done for me.
The chinks in UKIPS armour appearing already.
A tremendous amount of naivity and rheotoric.
The budget yes , aah well .
I have this premonition that there will be a budget
surplus with a UKIP mayor because he believes spending to be unneccesary.When he experiances the hard hitting reality of every day council buiseness as opposed to reading it in the Watford Observer he will aquiese and capitulate.
Im glad i havent entered into the debate. It's all been done for me. The chinks in UKIPS armour appearing already. A tremendous amount of naivity and rheotoric. The budget yes , aah well . I have this premonition that there will be a budget surplus with a UKIP mayor because he believes spending to be unneccesary.When he experiances the hard hitting reality of every day council buiseness as opposed to reading it in the Watford Observer he will aquiese and capitulate. trebleywebley
  • Score: 0

9:49am Sun 2 Feb 14

EU_OUT_NOW says...

trebleywebley wrote:
Im glad i havent entered into the debate.
It's all been done for me.
The chinks in UKIPS armour appearing already.
A tremendous amount of naivity and rheotoric.
The budget yes , aah well .
I have this premonition that there will be a budget
surplus with a UKIP mayor because he believes spending to be unneccesary.When he experiances the hard hitting reality of every day council buiseness as opposed to reading it in the Watford Observer he will aquiese and capitulate.
So our current Lib Dem Mayor is better qualified to manage money on sensible and necessary projects is she? I don't think so! Phil is right on the ball, believe me. He is even concerned that money should be spent on what the people of Watford need. How about that for a change?
[quote][p][bold]trebleywebley[/bold] wrote: Im glad i havent entered into the debate. It's all been done for me. The chinks in UKIPS armour appearing already. A tremendous amount of naivity and rheotoric. The budget yes , aah well . I have this premonition that there will be a budget surplus with a UKIP mayor because he believes spending to be unneccesary.When he experiances the hard hitting reality of every day council buiseness as opposed to reading it in the Watford Observer he will aquiese and capitulate.[/p][/quote]So our current Lib Dem Mayor is better qualified to manage money on sensible and necessary projects is she? I don't think so! Phil is right on the ball, believe me. He is even concerned that money should be spent on what the people of Watford need. How about that for a change? EU_OUT_NOW
  • Score: 1

9:56am Sun 2 Feb 14

EU_OUT_NOW says...

dontknowynot wrote:
"To all MY UKIP devotees, now I have your attention" ........... You always make sure you have our attention, you go on for days and days until you do...):):):): I can see you now on your little box in Hyde Park battling away preaching your bigoted and biased views to anyone fool enough to listen...
dontknowynot wrote: "To all MY UKIP devotees, now I have your attention" ........... You always make sure you have our attention, you go on for days and days until you do...):):):): I can see you now on your little box in Hyde Park battling away preaching your bigoted and biased views to anyone fool enough to listen... EU_OUT_NOW
  • Score: 0

10:07am Sun 2 Feb 14

EU_OUT_NOW says...

Jack18 says...

Ok then, say you voted UKIP and they are in power, what would you like to spend your money for the town?......... What would YOU like to see your money spent on in the town Jack18? UKIP the listening party. Vote UKIP you know it makes GOOD SENSE.
Jack18 says... Ok then, say you voted UKIP and they are in power, what would you like to spend your money for the town?......... What would YOU like to see your money spent on in the town Jack18? UKIP the listening party. Vote UKIP you know it makes GOOD SENSE. EU_OUT_NOW
  • Score: 0

11:01am Sun 2 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

EU_OUT_NOW wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
"To all MY UKIP devotees, now I have your attention" ........... You always make sure you have our attention, you go on for days and days until you do...):):):): I can see you now on your little box in Hyde Park battling away preaching your bigoted and biased views to anyone fool enough to listen...
ohh I do wonder at you sometimes having to have one of your fellow UKIPers ride to your rescue over your inept and crass sexist insult.

days and days indeed this post only went up three days ago , days and days is 4 at least

coming from the spam master party I can't help but have a little chuckle

Just wondering my devotee ought I be asking you to try a little bit harder next time, or would that be to much effort for you.
[quote][p][bold]EU_OUT_NOW[/bold] wrote: dontknowynot wrote: "To all MY UKIP devotees, now I have your attention" ........... You always make sure you have our attention, you go on for days and days until you do...):):):): I can see you now on your little box in Hyde Park battling away preaching your bigoted and biased views to anyone fool enough to listen...[/p][/quote]ohh I do wonder at you sometimes having to have one of your fellow UKIPers ride to your rescue over your inept and crass sexist insult. days and days indeed this post only went up three days ago , days and days is 4 at least coming from the spam master party I can't help but have a little chuckle Just wondering my devotee ought I be asking you to try a little bit harder next time, or would that be to much effort for you. dontknowynot
  • Score: 1

11:12am Sun 2 Feb 14

D_Penn says...

dontknowynot wrote:
D_Penn wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
So on the tally of people UKIP are alienating we can add the Catholics,
So we have non white british
Catholics
the left
Muslims
women
anyone who has ever changed their mind
People who are five foot ten and three quarters
(the last one is a joke(well I think it is))
The only person we've alienated is you and your precious Labour.

Your attacks on UKIP can be seen by all to be no more than the last act of the desperate. You are running scared because we have shown up your contempt for the electorate. Even now, your smug, useless leadership is voting against having a referendum on EU membership. You lot think you're so much better than the electorate that you do not want them to have a vote. The truth is that you really believe your own supporters are not bright enough to think for themselves, as Brown proved when he attacked a woman as bigotted because she was worried about mass immigration.

No wonder so many of your followers have torn up their membership cards, so disgusted were they last time Labour was in power. Some have now joined UKIP because they can see we are the party that really cares about people and the country where your Labour only cares about getting elected and then making money, like multi-millionaire Blair. Labour the party for the workers? Don't make me laugh.
yer yer
so you concead I am correct in what I say and then rattle of your abuse, rhetoric, and irrelevances next please
I conceded nothing.

What I do find telling though is your own confirmation that you consider the points I raised about your Labour as 'irrelevences'.

Labour prevents a democratic vote on membership of the EU. Irrelevant you cry!
Brown declares a Labour supporter a bigot for worrying about mass immigration. Irrelevant you cry!
Labour members desert your party in droves in disgust. Irrelevant you cry!
Blair makes a killing whilst destroying the country's finances. Irrelevant you cry!

Your contempt for the electorate is breathtaking and, like so many of you left wingers, you feel not the slightest bit ashamed because underneath all the posing and despite your utter failures when in power, you always think you are smarter than the rest of us. People know your game though and that of the other parties and are heartily sick of having smug contempt rammed down their throats. That's why UKIP are growing and will keep growing.

The real irony is that people like you do not even realise that you are our best recruiters. Keep posting.
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: So on the tally of people UKIP are alienating we can add the Catholics, So we have non white british Catholics the left Muslims women anyone who has ever changed their mind People who are five foot ten and three quarters (the last one is a joke(well I think it is))[/p][/quote]The only person we've alienated is you and your precious Labour. Your attacks on UKIP can be seen by all to be no more than the last act of the desperate. You are running scared because we have shown up your contempt for the electorate. Even now, your smug, useless leadership is voting against having a referendum on EU membership. You lot think you're so much better than the electorate that you do not want them to have a vote. The truth is that you really believe your own supporters are not bright enough to think for themselves, as Brown proved when he attacked a woman as bigotted because she was worried about mass immigration. No wonder so many of your followers have torn up their membership cards, so disgusted were they last time Labour was in power. Some have now joined UKIP because they can see we are the party that really cares about people and the country where your Labour only cares about getting elected and then making money, like multi-millionaire Blair. Labour the party for the workers? Don't make me laugh.[/p][/quote]yer yer so you concead I am correct in what I say and then rattle of your abuse, rhetoric, and irrelevances next please[/p][/quote]I conceded nothing. What I do find telling though is your own confirmation that you consider the points I raised about your Labour as 'irrelevences'. Labour prevents a democratic vote on membership of the EU. Irrelevant you cry! Brown declares a Labour supporter a bigot for worrying about mass immigration. Irrelevant you cry! Labour members desert your party in droves in disgust. Irrelevant you cry! Blair makes a killing whilst destroying the country's finances. Irrelevant you cry! Your contempt for the electorate is breathtaking and, like so many of you left wingers, you feel not the slightest bit ashamed because underneath all the posing and despite your utter failures when in power, you always think you are smarter than the rest of us. People know your game though and that of the other parties and are heartily sick of having smug contempt rammed down their throats. That's why UKIP are growing and will keep growing. The real irony is that people like you do not even realise that you are our best recruiters. Keep posting. D_Penn
  • Score: 1

11:21am Sun 2 Feb 14

BrianUKIP says...

Phil,
Could you clarify your position on the Khan issue? You have given 2 seemingly contradictory statements “I have no problem whatsoever with Cllr Khan and indeed I look forward to working with such able councillors”. The other; “UKIP has very strong policies on not letting racists into the party and also keeping those with extremist views out of the party. I agree with both of those policies”

So is your position that you have no problem whatsoever with Cllr Khan as long as he doesn't want to join the party?

If that is your position it’s not one I could support.
Phil, Could you clarify your position on the Khan issue? You have given 2 seemingly contradictory statements “I have no problem whatsoever with Cllr Khan and indeed I look forward to working with such able councillors”. The other; “UKIP has very strong policies on not letting racists into the party and also keeping those with extremist views out of the party. I agree with both of those policies” So is your position that you have no problem whatsoever with Cllr Khan as long as he doesn't want to join the party? If that is your position it’s not one I could support. BrianUKIP
  • Score: 0

11:24am Sun 2 Feb 14

EU_OUT_NOW says...

dontknowynot wrote:
EU_OUT_NOW wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
"To all MY UKIP devotees, now I have your attention" ........... You always make sure you have our attention, you go on for days and days until you do...):):):): I can see you now on your little box in Hyde Park battling away preaching your bigoted and biased views to anyone fool enough to listen...
ohh I do wonder at you sometimes having to have one of your fellow UKIPers ride to your rescue over your inept and crass sexist insult.

days and days indeed this post only went up three days ago , days and days is 4 at least

coming from the spam master party I can't help but have a little chuckle

Just wondering my devotee ought I be asking you to try a little bit harder next time, or would that be to much effort for you.
Have you any idea what your talking about?? you seem to have gone off track and lost the plot. Now you are now clutching at straws. But then again you usually do! Do try to shed this tunnel vision issue you have, broaden your mind, Try anyway.
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]EU_OUT_NOW[/bold] wrote: dontknowynot wrote: "To all MY UKIP devotees, now I have your attention" ........... You always make sure you have our attention, you go on for days and days until you do...):):):): I can see you now on your little box in Hyde Park battling away preaching your bigoted and biased views to anyone fool enough to listen...[/p][/quote]ohh I do wonder at you sometimes having to have one of your fellow UKIPers ride to your rescue over your inept and crass sexist insult. days and days indeed this post only went up three days ago , days and days is 4 at least coming from the spam master party I can't help but have a little chuckle Just wondering my devotee ought I be asking you to try a little bit harder next time, or would that be to much effort for you.[/p][/quote]Have you any idea what your talking about?? you seem to have gone off track and lost the plot. Now you are now clutching at straws. But then again you usually do! Do try to shed this tunnel vision issue you have, broaden your mind, Try anyway. EU_OUT_NOW
  • Score: 0

11:41am Sun 2 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
D_Penn wrote:
Harry's Bar wrote:
As a mayoral candidate is it appropriate to be posting political views on a non political forum?
It's relevant to the political article.
yes and no
Ie if you are concerned with the hospital fine but (and it is entirely up to you) if you rattle on about this or that UKIP meting it does come across as a sort of political spam thing (with my analytic hat on)
Also with my analytic hat on I think you are going to find out just how nasty the Libdems can be, and just how in bedded they are here
Thanks for the warning DKYN.

At the end of the day I think our UKIP message is better than their LibDem message, and their actions of late have also very much let them down.

Just as their national party is unravelling, so are their actions in Watford also unravelling as regards the "Health Campus" which is apparently devoid of health but full of housing. I doubt Pickles would have signed off the destruction of protected allotments for housing.

We have said that if we are elected we will investigate this thoroughly and openly. At the same time, we will do our utmost to save the allotments unless it is too late.
This I think is a major flaw with UKIP
when you say "I doubt Pickles would have signed off the destruction of protected allotments for housing." you are giving youselves away as a Tory party and you are being extremely naive, because you are ignoring the fact that this is exactly what he has done TWICE.
Now the one thing Pickles is not is unknowledgeable in the ways of local gov, Farm Terrace have put forward representations, and a plan has been forward that is exactly that. a plan for houses and a car park on the allotments. It is simply not credible to suggest that he has had the wool pulled over his eyes here, unless of course it was with his own acquiescence.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harry's Bar[/bold] wrote: As a mayoral candidate is it appropriate to be posting political views on a non political forum?[/p][/quote]It's relevant to the political article.[/p][/quote]yes and no Ie if you are concerned with the hospital fine but (and it is entirely up to you) if you rattle on about this or that UKIP meting it does come across as a sort of political spam thing (with my analytic hat on) Also with my analytic hat on I think you are going to find out just how nasty the Libdems can be, and just how in bedded they are here[/p][/quote]Thanks for the warning DKYN. At the end of the day I think our UKIP message is better than their LibDem message, and their actions of late have also very much let them down. Just as their national party is unravelling, so are their actions in Watford also unravelling as regards the "Health Campus" which is apparently devoid of health but full of housing. I doubt Pickles would have signed off the destruction of protected allotments for housing. We have said that if we are elected we will investigate this thoroughly and openly. At the same time, we will do our utmost to save the allotments unless it is too late.[/p][/quote]This I think is a major flaw with UKIP when you say "I doubt Pickles would have signed off the destruction of protected allotments for housing." you are giving youselves away as a Tory party and you are being extremely naive, because you are ignoring the fact that this is exactly what he has done TWICE. Now the one thing Pickles is not is unknowledgeable in the ways of local gov, Farm Terrace have put forward representations, and a plan has been forward that is exactly that. a plan for houses and a car park on the allotments. It is simply not credible to suggest that he has had the wool pulled over his eyes here, unless of course it was with his own acquiescence. dontknowynot
  • Score: 1

11:55am Sun 2 Feb 14

D_Penn says...

@dontknowynot

You said: "Another gem is your partys climate change denial, it is nonsense plain and simple and locally we better accept it is happening and deal with the consequences."

Yet again your arrogance in your own beliefs is beyond ridiculous.

I don't know whether you have a science background (I do) or are simply indoctrinated because you believe everything you see on the BBC?

Let's be clear. Climate change is happening. It has always happened. 12,000 years ago the Sarah Desert was green and fertile. That changed without mankind's intervention, although if today's civilisation had been around then no doubt everyone would convince themselves that humans were at fault.

Look, the question is simple. Are human activities causing climate change? The answer is unclear, although the predictions for global warming made fifteen years ago have now been shown to have been utterly wrong and are thoroughly discredited. There is still no climate model that has been even close to making predictions that match reality. To act without any idea of what is going in is just foolhardy.

Despite that, politicians in the EU and UK have carried on madly with green policy, even though nobody knows where the clmate is heading and what effect, if any, mankind is having.

Meanwhile, the US, China, India etc., the real polluters, will continue to grow their economies until every last drop of oil, whiff of gas and lump of coal has been burnt. If the EU countries have destroyed their businesses and further impoverished their nations then people like you, who unquestionably accept everything you are told to believe, will deservedly receive utter contempt from our poor grand children when they realise how your arrogance destroyed the lifestyles they should have been able to enjoy.

In the meantime, climate will continue to change, as it always has done. We cannot stop or control it any more than Canute could hold back the tide. The only solution is for the planet to stop breeding so many children. The earth cannot support 7 billion people long term. It does not have the resources to maintain that level and inevitable non-man made climate change will bring in more ice ages where it will be impossible to support even 2 billion people. We need to prepare for that, but the windmill policy is costly, ridiculous and will not make one iota's difference to the problems we will undoubtedly face in the future.

That is the reality and fortunately, more and more people are leaving 'green fashion' behind as the impossibiliy of meeting the costs are beginning to hit their pockets and poverty is beginning to bite.
@dontknowynot You said: "Another gem is your partys climate change denial, it is nonsense plain and simple and locally we better accept it is happening and deal with the consequences." Yet again your arrogance in your own beliefs is beyond ridiculous. I don't know whether you have a science background (I do) or are simply indoctrinated because you believe everything you see on the BBC? Let's be clear. Climate change is happening. It has always happened. 12,000 years ago the Sarah Desert was green and fertile. That changed without mankind's intervention, although if today's civilisation had been around then no doubt everyone would convince themselves that humans were at fault. Look, the question is simple. Are human activities causing climate change? The answer is unclear, although the predictions for global warming made fifteen years ago have now been shown to have been utterly wrong and are thoroughly discredited. There is still no climate model that has been even close to making predictions that match reality. To act without any idea of what is going in is just foolhardy. Despite that, politicians in the EU and UK have carried on madly with green policy, even though nobody knows where the clmate is heading and what effect, if any, mankind is having. Meanwhile, the US, China, India etc., the real polluters, will continue to grow their economies until every last drop of oil, whiff of gas and lump of coal has been burnt. If the EU countries have destroyed their businesses and further impoverished their nations then people like you, who unquestionably accept everything you are told to believe, will deservedly receive utter contempt from our poor grand children when they realise how your arrogance destroyed the lifestyles they should have been able to enjoy. In the meantime, climate will continue to change, as it always has done. We cannot stop or control it any more than Canute could hold back the tide. The only solution is for the planet to stop breeding so many children. The earth cannot support 7 billion people long term. It does not have the resources to maintain that level and inevitable non-man made climate change will bring in more ice ages where it will be impossible to support even 2 billion people. We need to prepare for that, but the windmill policy is costly, ridiculous and will not make one iota's difference to the problems we will undoubtedly face in the future. That is the reality and fortunately, more and more people are leaving 'green fashion' behind as the impossibiliy of meeting the costs are beginning to hit their pockets and poverty is beginning to bite. D_Penn
  • Score: 2

12:06pm Sun 2 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

EU_OUT_NOW wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
Fine
your choice only accessing a limited number percentage of the electorate,
I take a rule of thumb in elections to be 40% gets you elected
you guys are looking to get 40% of the total vote out of 70% the electorate, you won't.
that makes you an irrelevnce.
As to Euro elections in 2009 you were third and now you are less reps in the EU parliament than the other three parties
vote UKIP get gawd knows what
Vote UKIP you know it makes nonsense
I wish you would take your HRT tablets "dontknowynot".
.... you know what you get like if you miss them! Vote UKIP. It's the only way forward. You know it makes SENSE.
@EU_OUT_NOW
OK them lets get started you wrote

"I wish you would take your HRT tablets "dontknowynot"..... you know what you get like if you miss them! Vote UKIP. "

Can you please explain how this can possibly be anything other than a sexist insult.
[quote][p][bold]EU_OUT_NOW[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: Fine your choice only accessing a limited number percentage of the electorate, I take a rule of thumb in elections to be 40% gets you elected you guys are looking to get 40% of the total vote out of 70% the electorate, you won't. that makes you an irrelevnce. As to Euro elections in 2009 you were third and now you are less reps in the EU parliament than the other three parties vote UKIP get gawd knows what Vote UKIP you know it makes nonsense[/p][/quote]I wish you would take your HRT tablets "dontknowynot". .... you know what you get like if you miss them! Vote UKIP. It's the only way forward. You know it makes SENSE.[/p][/quote]@EU_OUT_NOW OK them lets get started you wrote "I wish you would take your HRT tablets "dontknowynot"..... you know what you get like if you miss them! Vote UKIP. " Can you please explain how this can possibly be anything other than a sexist insult. dontknowynot
  • Score: 1

12:29pm Sun 2 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

@D_Penn .
your partys opposition to windmills was in the manifesto your leader described as nonsense and rubbish, is it still UKIP policy?
You do also fail to even touch on fracking.
As to cost what is UKIP policy on Nuclear at inflated prices?

As to your contention of not proven in a civil court a 95% degree of certainty as expressed by scientists would easily be taken as proof.
Now I might agree with one thing the Q is how we deal with it?
Today's flooding indeed highlights the issue, unfortunately I see no answer that does not involve spending money here, also I would note that it will require co operation between different agency's, people working together for the common good, in short a socialist response.
@D_Penn . your partys opposition to windmills was in the manifesto your leader described as nonsense and rubbish, is it still UKIP policy? You do also fail to even touch on fracking. As to cost what is UKIP policy on Nuclear at inflated prices? As to your contention of not proven in a civil court a 95% degree of certainty as expressed by scientists would easily be taken as proof. Now I might agree with one thing the Q is how we deal with it? Today's flooding indeed highlights the issue, unfortunately I see no answer that does not involve spending money here, also I would note that it will require co operation between different agency's, people working together for the common good, in short a socialist response. dontknowynot
  • Score: 1

12:33pm Sun 2 Feb 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

BrianUKIP wrote:
Phil,
Could you clarify your position on the Khan issue? You have given 2 seemingly contradictory statements “I have no problem whatsoever with Cllr Khan and indeed I look forward to working with such able councillors”. The other; “UKIP has very strong policies on not letting racists into the party and also keeping those with extremist views out of the party. I agree with both of those policies”

So is your position that you have no problem whatsoever with Cllr Khan as long as he doesn't want to join the party?

If that is your position it’s not one I could support.
Brian

UKIPs policy is to keep out racists and extremists.

The issue then is, does Cllr Khan still harbour extremist views? Is he still an extremist? My position hinges on the answer to that question.

He says no. His party, Labour, backs him.

I am inclined, without any evidence to the contrary, to accept what they say on this matter.


His past however would almost certainly exclude him from membership of UKIP but I hope that's something he can bring himself to live with.
[quote][p][bold]BrianUKIP[/bold] wrote: Phil, Could you clarify your position on the Khan issue? You have given 2 seemingly contradictory statements “I have no problem whatsoever with Cllr Khan and indeed I look forward to working with such able councillors”. The other; “UKIP has very strong policies on not letting racists into the party and also keeping those with extremist views out of the party. I agree with both of those policies” So is your position that you have no problem whatsoever with Cllr Khan as long as he doesn't want to join the party? If that is your position it’s not one I could support.[/p][/quote]Brian UKIPs policy is to keep out racists and extremists. The issue then is, does Cllr Khan still harbour extremist views? Is he still an extremist? My position hinges on the answer to that question. He says no. His party, Labour, backs him. I am inclined, without any evidence to the contrary, to accept what they say on this matter. His past however would almost certainly exclude him from membership of UKIP but I hope that's something he can bring himself to live with. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: 0

12:33pm Sun 2 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

@EU_OUT_NOW
OK them lets get started you wrote

"I wish you would take your HRT tablets "dontknowynot"..... you know what you get like if you miss them! Vote UKIP. "

Can you please explain how this can possibly be anything other than a sexist insult.
@EU_OUT_NOW OK them lets get started you wrote "I wish you would take your HRT tablets "dontknowynot"..... you know what you get like if you miss them! Vote UKIP. " Can you please explain how this can possibly be anything other than a sexist insult. dontknowynot
  • Score: 1

12:56pm Sun 2 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
BrianUKIP wrote:
Phil,
Could you clarify your position on the Khan issue? You have given 2 seemingly contradictory statements “I have no problem whatsoever with Cllr Khan and indeed I look forward to working with such able councillors”. The other; “UKIP has very strong policies on not letting racists into the party and also keeping those with extremist views out of the party. I agree with both of those policies”

So is your position that you have no problem whatsoever with Cllr Khan as long as he doesn't want to join the party?

If that is your position it’s not one I could support.
Brian

UKIPs policy is to keep out racists and extremists.

The issue then is, does Cllr Khan still harbour extremist views? Is he still an extremist? My position hinges on the answer to that question.

He says no. His party, Labour, backs him.

I am inclined, without any evidence to the contrary, to accept what they say on this matter.


His past however would almost certainly exclude him from membership of UKIP but I hope that's something he can bring himself to live with.
yet you still get storys like this in the DM
http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/news/article-
2537834/UKIPs-vile-M
andela-slave-rant-ex
posed-New-racism-sto
rm-following-remarks
-former-South-Africa
n-President-murdered

or this again in the DM
http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/news/article-
2520012/Send-home-In
-shocking-video-UKIP
-councillor-key-Fara
ge-ally-launches-ast
onishing-racist-rant
--tells-MoS-I-stand-
word.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BrianUKIP[/bold] wrote: Phil, Could you clarify your position on the Khan issue? You have given 2 seemingly contradictory statements “I have no problem whatsoever with Cllr Khan and indeed I look forward to working with such able councillors”. The other; “UKIP has very strong policies on not letting racists into the party and also keeping those with extremist views out of the party. I agree with both of those policies” So is your position that you have no problem whatsoever with Cllr Khan as long as he doesn't want to join the party? If that is your position it’s not one I could support.[/p][/quote]Brian UKIPs policy is to keep out racists and extremists. The issue then is, does Cllr Khan still harbour extremist views? Is he still an extremist? My position hinges on the answer to that question. He says no. His party, Labour, backs him. I am inclined, without any evidence to the contrary, to accept what they say on this matter. His past however would almost certainly exclude him from membership of UKIP but I hope that's something he can bring himself to live with.[/p][/quote]yet you still get storys like this in the DM http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 2537834/UKIPs-vile-M andela-slave-rant-ex posed-New-racism-sto rm-following-remarks -former-South-Africa n-President-murdered or this again in the DM http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 2520012/Send-home-In -shocking-video-UKIP -councillor-key-Fara ge-ally-launches-ast onishing-racist-rant --tells-MoS-I-stand- word. dontknowynot
  • Score: 1

1:05pm Sun 2 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

and while we are at it PC my ole

maybe you can answer:-

EU out wrote
"I wish you would take your HRT tablets "dontknowynot"..... you know what you get like if you miss them! Vote UKIP. "

Can you please explain how this can possibly be anything other than a sexist insult.
and while we are at it PC my ole maybe you can answer:- EU out wrote "I wish you would take your HRT tablets "dontknowynot"..... you know what you get like if you miss them! Vote UKIP. " Can you please explain how this can possibly be anything other than a sexist insult. dontknowynot
  • Score: 2

1:32pm Sun 2 Feb 14

D_Penn says...

dontknowynot wrote:
@D_Penn .
your partys opposition to windmills was in the manifesto your leader described as nonsense and rubbish, is it still UKIP policy?
You do also fail to even touch on fracking.
As to cost what is UKIP policy on Nuclear at inflated prices?

As to your contention of not proven in a civil court a 95% degree of certainty as expressed by scientists would easily be taken as proof.
Now I might agree with one thing the Q is how we deal with it?
Today's flooding indeed highlights the issue, unfortunately I see no answer that does not involve spending money here, also I would note that it will require co operation between different agency's, people working together for the common good, in short a socialist response.
There's no 95% degree of certainty. The climate models used to predict global warming have been proven wrong. Increasing numbers of scientists who backed global warming are now undecided, but, like turning around an enormous tanker, it takes time for professionals to readjust their views in public without losing professional credibility and yes, their research grants.

Fracking is safer on ground stability than coal mining. The worries about grounwater contamination are unfounded based on history. Inevitably the rolling out of a new industry causes panic, but Britain needs its own gas if we are not to be held to ransom.

Nuclear power is needed because there is no viable alternative. It can never be 100% safe and that is a big concern. However, if you ask people whether they would rathef be poor but safe or prosperous with a tiny risk, most will choose the latter. In terms of world economic competition, that's the hard choice.

Currently though, we face a real risk of the lights going out in Britain and huge foreign imported energy costs because Labour and then the Coalition were too scared of the Greens to do anything about our impending energy shortage other than build windmills.

Because of past failures, the UK that was a leader in Nuclear Power now has to rely on China to build power stations! Meanwhile, with 300 years' worth of coal sitting underground, the EU has told us we have to switch off all our coal fired power stations. That has left us dependent on gas where our spare capacity is now down to 4%. In the past, 25% was considered a minimum safe buffer, so get your candles ready for next winter.

Finally, we can only store enough gas for 4 days supply in Britain in winter. Other nations have weeks or months of supply storage meaning they can buy gas when it's cheaper. Your party and the Coalition were repeatedly told that more storage was needed. The response? Let's put money into building even more windmills! Ridiculous, and now we are paying as foreign energy companies milk us all because of our governments' stupidity.

No wonder people hold their heads in despair at the incompetence of successive goverments. Thank heavens UKIP are here to force change.
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: @D_Penn . your partys opposition to windmills was in the manifesto your leader described as nonsense and rubbish, is it still UKIP policy? You do also fail to even touch on fracking. As to cost what is UKIP policy on Nuclear at inflated prices? As to your contention of not proven in a civil court a 95% degree of certainty as expressed by scientists would easily be taken as proof. Now I might agree with one thing the Q is how we deal with it? Today's flooding indeed highlights the issue, unfortunately I see no answer that does not involve spending money here, also I would note that it will require co operation between different agency's, people working together for the common good, in short a socialist response.[/p][/quote]There's no 95% degree of certainty. The climate models used to predict global warming have been proven wrong. Increasing numbers of scientists who backed global warming are now undecided, but, like turning around an enormous tanker, it takes time for professionals to readjust their views in public without losing professional credibility and yes, their research grants. Fracking is safer on ground stability than coal mining. The worries about grounwater contamination are unfounded based on history. Inevitably the rolling out of a new industry causes panic, but Britain needs its own gas if we are not to be held to ransom. Nuclear power is needed because there is no viable alternative. It can never be 100% safe and that is a big concern. However, if you ask people whether they would rathef be poor but safe or prosperous with a tiny risk, most will choose the latter. In terms of world economic competition, that's the hard choice. Currently though, we face a real risk of the lights going out in Britain and huge foreign imported energy costs because Labour and then the Coalition were too scared of the Greens to do anything about our impending energy shortage other than build windmills. Because of past failures, the UK that was a leader in Nuclear Power now has to rely on China to build power stations! Meanwhile, with 300 years' worth of coal sitting underground, the EU has told us we have to switch off all our coal fired power stations. That has left us dependent on gas where our spare capacity is now down to 4%. In the past, 25% was considered a minimum safe buffer, so get your candles ready for next winter. Finally, we can only store enough gas for 4 days supply in Britain in winter. Other nations have weeks or months of supply storage meaning they can buy gas when it's cheaper. Your party and the Coalition were repeatedly told that more storage was needed. The response? Let's put money into building even more windmills! Ridiculous, and now we are paying as foreign energy companies milk us all because of our governments' stupidity. No wonder people hold their heads in despair at the incompetence of successive goverments. Thank heavens UKIP are here to force change. D_Penn
  • Score: 0

1:43pm Sun 2 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

rest assured I have answers for all of your points, but can you please answer
EU out said
"I wish you would take your HRT tablets "dontknowynot"..... you know what you get like if you miss them! Vote UKIP. "

Can you please explain how this can possibly be anything other than a sexist insult.
rest assured I have answers for all of your points, but can you please answer EU out said "I wish you would take your HRT tablets "dontknowynot"..... you know what you get like if you miss them! Vote UKIP. " Can you please explain how this can possibly be anything other than a sexist insult. dontknowynot
  • Score: 1

1:53pm Sun 2 Feb 14

EU_OUT_NOW says...

dontknowynot wrote:
rest assured I have answers for all of your points, but can you please answer
EU out said
"I wish you would take your HRT tablets "dontknowynot"..... you know what you get like if you miss them! Vote UKIP. "

Can you please explain how this can possibly be anything other than a sexist insult.
Others are under no obligation to give an answer to a comment I made. The wife has just read this and does not regard it as sexists. So your judgemental remark on women's behalf is misplaced, especially as she takes HRT. So how about you grow up you antagonistic Labourite. Go and take a Valium and lie down quietly in a dark room for a while. You are loosing control yet again!
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: rest assured I have answers for all of your points, but can you please answer EU out said "I wish you would take your HRT tablets "dontknowynot"..... you know what you get like if you miss them! Vote UKIP. " Can you please explain how this can possibly be anything other than a sexist insult.[/p][/quote]Others are under no obligation to give an answer to a comment I made. The wife has just read this and does not regard it as sexists. So your judgemental remark on women's behalf is misplaced, especially as she takes HRT. So how about you grow up you antagonistic Labourite. Go and take a Valium and lie down quietly in a dark room for a while. You are loosing control yet again! EU_OUT_NOW
  • Score: -1

2:04pm Sun 2 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

EU_OUT_NOW wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
rest assured I have answers for all of your points, but can you please answer
EU out said
"I wish you would take your HRT tablets "dontknowynot"..... you know what you get like if you miss them! Vote UKIP. "

Can you please explain how this can possibly be anything other than a sexist insult.
Others are under no obligation to give an answer to a comment I made. The wife has just read this and does not regard it as sexists. So your judgemental remark on women's behalf is misplaced, especially as she takes HRT. So how about you grow up you antagonistic Labourite. Go and take a Valium and lie down quietly in a dark room for a while. You are loosing control yet again!
no doubt "the wife" is prone to agreeing with the master
[quote][p][bold]EU_OUT_NOW[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: rest assured I have answers for all of your points, but can you please answer EU out said "I wish you would take your HRT tablets "dontknowynot"..... you know what you get like if you miss them! Vote UKIP. " Can you please explain how this can possibly be anything other than a sexist insult.[/p][/quote]Others are under no obligation to give an answer to a comment I made. The wife has just read this and does not regard it as sexists. So your judgemental remark on women's behalf is misplaced, especially as she takes HRT. So how about you grow up you antagonistic Labourite. Go and take a Valium and lie down quietly in a dark room for a while. You are loosing control yet again![/p][/quote]no doubt "the wife" is prone to agreeing with the master dontknowynot
  • Score: -2

2:11pm Sun 2 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

go take your HRT
IS a sexist remark !!

" Go and take a Valium and lie down quietly in a dark room for a while" is not much better originating from the 70's when Valium was oversubscribed to women, I suppose now it might be equally offensive to some people with Anxiety (i think it is still used for that)
Can't you help being offensive
go take your HRT IS a sexist remark !! " Go and take a Valium and lie down quietly in a dark room for a while" is not much better originating from the 70's when Valium was oversubscribed to women, I suppose now it might be equally offensive to some people with Anxiety (i think it is still used for that) Can't you help being offensive dontknowynot
  • Score: -1

2:13pm Sun 2 Feb 14

EU_OUT_NOW says...

dontknowynot wrote:
go take your HRT
IS a sexist remark !!

" Go and take a Valium and lie down quietly in a dark room for a while" is not much better originating from the 70's when Valium was oversubscribed to women, I suppose now it might be equally offensive to some people with Anxiety (i think it is still used for that)
Can't you help being offensive
Are you a woman then??
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: go take your HRT IS a sexist remark !! " Go and take a Valium and lie down quietly in a dark room for a while" is not much better originating from the 70's when Valium was oversubscribed to women, I suppose now it might be equally offensive to some people with Anxiety (i think it is still used for that) Can't you help being offensive[/p][/quote]Are you a woman then?? EU_OUT_NOW
  • Score: -2

2:15pm Sun 2 Feb 14

EU_OUT_NOW says...

EU_OUT_NOW wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
go take your HRT
IS a sexist remark !!

" Go and take a Valium and lie down quietly in a dark room for a while" is not much better originating from the 70's when Valium was oversubscribed to women, I suppose now it might be equally offensive to some people with Anxiety (i think it is still used for that)
Can't you help being offensive
Are you a woman then??
I love being offensive to you, you know that!! We have crossed swords many times. What's the matter with you today?
[quote][p][bold]EU_OUT_NOW[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: go take your HRT IS a sexist remark !! " Go and take a Valium and lie down quietly in a dark room for a while" is not much better originating from the 70's when Valium was oversubscribed to women, I suppose now it might be equally offensive to some people with Anxiety (i think it is still used for that) Can't you help being offensive[/p][/quote]Are you a woman then??[/p][/quote]I love being offensive to you, you know that!! We have crossed swords many times. What's the matter with you today? EU_OUT_NOW
  • Score: 0

2:20pm Sun 2 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

@EU_out

moving on to the second point
"days and days indeed this post only went up three days ago , days and days is 4 at least"
its basic maths isn't it the post story has not been up 4 days therefore your statement is an exaggeration isn't it, not a big exaggeration by the standards of UKIP scaremongering but an exaggeration none the less
@EU_out moving on to the second point "days and days indeed this post only went up three days ago , days and days is 4 at least" its basic maths isn't it the post story has not been up 4 days therefore your statement is an exaggeration isn't it, not a big exaggeration by the standards of UKIP scaremongering but an exaggeration none the less dontknowynot
  • Score: 0

2:25pm Sun 2 Feb 14

EU_OUT_NOW says...

dontknowynot wrote:
@EU_out

moving on to the second point
"days and days indeed this post only went up three days ago , days and days is 4 at least"
its basic maths isn't it the post story has not been up 4 days therefore your statement is an exaggeration isn't it, not a big exaggeration by the standards of UKIP scaremongering but an exaggeration none the less
Oh boy, lost it totally, I knew you would, as always! Ta Ta for now.
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: @EU_out moving on to the second point "days and days indeed this post only went up three days ago , days and days is 4 at least" its basic maths isn't it the post story has not been up 4 days therefore your statement is an exaggeration isn't it, not a big exaggeration by the standards of UKIP scaremongering but an exaggeration none the less[/p][/quote]Oh boy, lost it totally, I knew you would, as always! Ta Ta for now. EU_OUT_NOW
  • Score: 0

2:31pm Sun 2 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

EU_OUT_NOW wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
@EU_out

moving on to the second point
"days and days indeed this post only went up three days ago , days and days is 4 at least"
its basic maths isn't it the post story has not been up 4 days therefore your statement is an exaggeration isn't it, not a big exaggeration by the standards of UKIP scaremongering but an exaggeration none the less
Oh boy, lost it totally, I knew you would, as always! Ta Ta for now.
so that's what just an insult because you know I am right

next please
[quote][p][bold]EU_OUT_NOW[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: @EU_out moving on to the second point "days and days indeed this post only went up three days ago , days and days is 4 at least" its basic maths isn't it the post story has not been up 4 days therefore your statement is an exaggeration isn't it, not a big exaggeration by the standards of UKIP scaremongering but an exaggeration none the less[/p][/quote]Oh boy, lost it totally, I knew you would, as always! Ta Ta for now.[/p][/quote]so that's what just an insult because you know I am right next please dontknowynot
  • Score: 1

2:54pm Sun 2 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

dontknowynot wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
D_Penn wrote:
Harry's Bar wrote:
As a mayoral candidate is it appropriate to be posting political views on a non political forum?
It's relevant to the political article.
yes and no
Ie if you are concerned with the hospital fine but (and it is entirely up to you) if you rattle on about this or that UKIP meting it does come across as a sort of political spam thing (with my analytic hat on)
Also with my analytic hat on I think you are going to find out just how nasty the Libdems can be, and just how in bedded they are here
Thanks for the warning DKYN.

At the end of the day I think our UKIP message is better than their LibDem message, and their actions of late have also very much let them down.

Just as their national party is unravelling, so are their actions in Watford also unravelling as regards the "Health Campus" which is apparently devoid of health but full of housing. I doubt Pickles would have signed off the destruction of protected allotments for housing.

We have said that if we are elected we will investigate this thoroughly and openly. At the same time, we will do our utmost to save the allotments unless it is too late.
This I think is a major flaw with UKIP
when you say "I doubt Pickles would have signed off the destruction of protected allotments for housing." you are giving youselves away as a Tory party and you are being extremely naive, because you are ignoring the fact that this is exactly what he has done TWICE.
Now the one thing Pickles is not is unknowledgeable in the ways of local gov, Farm Terrace have put forward representations, and a plan has been forward that is exactly that. a plan for houses and a car park on the allotments. It is simply not credible to suggest that he has had the wool pulled over his eyes here, unless of course it was with his own acquiescence.
I would like to deal with your points on Global warming but think it is only fare we deal with a couple of other things first starting with this which you have ignored
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harry's Bar[/bold] wrote: As a mayoral candidate is it appropriate to be posting political views on a non political forum?[/p][/quote]It's relevant to the political article.[/p][/quote]yes and no Ie if you are concerned with the hospital fine but (and it is entirely up to you) if you rattle on about this or that UKIP meting it does come across as a sort of political spam thing (with my analytic hat on) Also with my analytic hat on I think you are going to find out just how nasty the Libdems can be, and just how in bedded they are here[/p][/quote]Thanks for the warning DKYN. At the end of the day I think our UKIP message is better than their LibDem message, and their actions of late have also very much let them down. Just as their national party is unravelling, so are their actions in Watford also unravelling as regards the "Health Campus" which is apparently devoid of health but full of housing. I doubt Pickles would have signed off the destruction of protected allotments for housing. We have said that if we are elected we will investigate this thoroughly and openly. At the same time, we will do our utmost to save the allotments unless it is too late.[/p][/quote]This I think is a major flaw with UKIP when you say "I doubt Pickles would have signed off the destruction of protected allotments for housing." you are giving youselves away as a Tory party and you are being extremely naive, because you are ignoring the fact that this is exactly what he has done TWICE. Now the one thing Pickles is not is unknowledgeable in the ways of local gov, Farm Terrace have put forward representations, and a plan has been forward that is exactly that. a plan for houses and a car park on the allotments. It is simply not credible to suggest that he has had the wool pulled over his eyes here, unless of course it was with his own acquiescence.[/p][/quote]I would like to deal with your points on Global warming but think it is only fare we deal with a couple of other things first starting with this which you have ignored dontknowynot
  • Score: 0

3:03pm Sun 2 Feb 14

LSC says...

Climate change is a confusing subject and open to many questions. We all know our landscape was made by glaciers, that is O level geography. This place was all ice once, with no influence from mankind.
The climate IS changing, and mankind is playing a part. But not just in the way many people think.
Look at our own town as an example. Water Lane (and there is a clue in the name) used to have a flood plain and a college on stilts to cater for the millions of gallons of water that settled there. Now we have a hotel and a Tesco.
Where do you think the water now goes? Do you think the developers spent millions on sorting it out, or just enough to keep it off their property?
Add to that all the big gardens sold off for housing, and all the new driveways that were front gardens.
The water table has risen, it therefore evaporates faster, forms clouds and we get rain. And on it goes.
Over development to cater for overpopulation is the main problem in the UK.
You can build all the windmills you like, but you won't stop it.
Climate change is a confusing subject and open to many questions. We all know our landscape was made by glaciers, that is O level geography. This place was all ice once, with no influence from mankind. The climate IS changing, and mankind is playing a part. But not just in the way many people think. Look at our own town as an example. Water Lane (and there is a clue in the name) used to have a flood plain and a college on stilts to cater for the millions of gallons of water that settled there. Now we have a hotel and a Tesco. Where do you think the water now goes? Do you think the developers spent millions on sorting it out, or just enough to keep it off their property? Add to that all the big gardens sold off for housing, and all the new driveways that were front gardens. The water table has risen, it therefore evaporates faster, forms clouds and we get rain. And on it goes. Over development to cater for overpopulation is the main problem in the UK. You can build all the windmills you like, but you won't stop it. LSC
  • Score: 0

3:23pm Sun 2 Feb 14

D_Penn says...

dontknowynot wrote:
rest assured I have answers for all of your points, but can you please answer EU out said "I wish you would take your HRT tablets "dontknowynot"..... you know what you get like if you miss them! Vote UKIP. " Can you please explain how this can possibly be anything other than a sexist insult.
I'm still waiting for the answers.

As for the so called 'sexist' insult you keep blathering on about, I couldn't be less bothered. I am fed up with people like you who cannot wait for a chance to take offence. Okay, so your offended and I don't care. Do you know why?

You support a party that wrecked the country, took us into a dodgy war, ended up with millions unemployed and falling living standards, but all you want to do is moan that you believe that someone has thrown a sexist insult at you. You are so self centred that you think that more important than the state of the country.

So you're offended. Tough, you won't die, so get over it!
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: rest assured I have answers for all of your points, but can you please answer EU out said "I wish you would take your HRT tablets "dontknowynot"..... you know what you get like if you miss them! Vote UKIP. " Can you please explain how this can possibly be anything other than a sexist insult.[/p][/quote]I'm still waiting for the answers. As for the so called 'sexist' insult you keep blathering on about, I couldn't be less bothered. I am fed up with people like you who cannot wait for a chance to take offence. Okay, so your offended and I don't care. Do you know why? You support a party that wrecked the country, took us into a dodgy war, ended up with millions unemployed and falling living standards, but all you want to do is moan that you believe that someone has thrown a sexist insult at you. You are so self centred that you think that more important than the state of the country. So you're offended. Tough, you won't die, so get over it! D_Penn
  • Score: 0

3:35pm Sun 2 Feb 14

BrianUKIP says...

Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
BrianUKIP wrote:
Phil,
Could you clarify your position on the Khan issue? You have given 2 seemingly contradictory statements “I have no problem whatsoever with Cllr Khan and indeed I look forward to working with such able councillors”. The other; “UKIP has very strong policies on not letting racists into the party and also keeping those with extremist views out of the party. I agree with both of those policies”

So is your position that you have no problem whatsoever with Cllr Khan as long as he doesn't want to join the party?

If that is your position it’s not one I could support.
Brian

UKIPs policy is to keep out racists and extremists.

The issue then is, does Cllr Khan still harbour extremist views? Is he still an extremist? My position hinges on the answer to that question.

He says no. His party, Labour, backs him.

I am inclined, without any evidence to the contrary, to accept what they say on this matter.


His past however would almost certainly exclude him from membership of UKIP but I hope that's something he can bring himself to live with.
Thanks for the answer Phil I just wanted reassurance that Khan wouldn’t be welcome in our party.

Talking to a Labour mate last night (we do mix with everyone you know) he tells me that dontknowynot is Councillor Ann Joynnes who boasts to anyone who will listen that she is being so clever “seeing off” UKIP on line.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BrianUKIP[/bold] wrote: Phil, Could you clarify your position on the Khan issue? You have given 2 seemingly contradictory statements “I have no problem whatsoever with Cllr Khan and indeed I look forward to working with such able councillors”. The other; “UKIP has very strong policies on not letting racists into the party and also keeping those with extremist views out of the party. I agree with both of those policies” So is your position that you have no problem whatsoever with Cllr Khan as long as he doesn't want to join the party? If that is your position it’s not one I could support.[/p][/quote]Brian UKIPs policy is to keep out racists and extremists. The issue then is, does Cllr Khan still harbour extremist views? Is he still an extremist? My position hinges on the answer to that question. He says no. His party, Labour, backs him. I am inclined, without any evidence to the contrary, to accept what they say on this matter. His past however would almost certainly exclude him from membership of UKIP but I hope that's something he can bring himself to live with.[/p][/quote]Thanks for the answer Phil I just wanted reassurance that Khan wouldn’t be welcome in our party. Talking to a Labour mate last night (we do mix with everyone you know) he tells me that dontknowynot is Councillor Ann Joynnes who boasts to anyone who will listen that she is being so clever “seeing off” UKIP on line. BrianUKIP
  • Score: 8

4:13pm Sun 2 Feb 14

D_Penn says...

@BrianUKIP

"Talking to a Labour mate last night (we do mix with everyone you know) he tells me that dontknowynot is Councillor Ann Joynnes who boasts to anyone who will listen that she is being so clever “seeing off” UKIP on line"

That's interesting. If true and she's their best debater, then they are in worse trouble than I thought. I have talked with many socialists who at least have a deep understanding of the roots of their ideology and discussions with them are both fascinating and informative. What annoys me about DKYN is that all you get is the same simplistic soundbite claptrap trotted out with no detailed analysis behind it. It's like trying to debate with a child who doesn't listen to any viewpoint that's different to their own.
@BrianUKIP "Talking to a Labour mate last night (we do mix with everyone you know) he tells me that dontknowynot is Councillor Ann Joynnes who boasts to anyone who will listen that she is being so clever “seeing off” UKIP on line" That's interesting. If true and she's their best debater, then they are in worse trouble than I thought. I have talked with many socialists who at least have a deep understanding of the roots of their ideology and discussions with them are both fascinating and informative. What annoys me about DKYN is that all you get is the same simplistic soundbite claptrap trotted out with no detailed analysis behind it. It's like trying to debate with a child who doesn't listen to any viewpoint that's different to their own. D_Penn
  • Score: 0

4:14pm Sun 2 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

dontknowynot wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
D_Penn wrote:
Harry's Bar wrote:
As a mayoral candidate is it appropriate to be posting political views on a non political forum?
It's relevant to the political article.
yes and no
Ie if you are concerned with the hospital fine but (and it is entirely up to you) if you rattle on about this or that UKIP meting it does come across as a sort of political spam thing (with my analytic hat on)
Also with my analytic hat on I think you are going to find out just how nasty the Libdems can be, and just how in bedded they are here
Thanks for the warning DKYN.

At the end of the day I think our UKIP message is better than their LibDem message, and their actions of late have also very much let them down.

Just as their national party is unravelling, so are their actions in Watford also unravelling as regards the "Health Campus" which is apparently devoid of health but full of housing. I doubt Pickles would have signed off the destruction of protected allotments for housing.

We have said that if we are elected we will investigate this thoroughly and openly. At the same time, we will do our utmost to save the allotments unless it is too late.
This I think is a major flaw with UKIP
when you say "I doubt Pickles would have signed off the destruction of protected allotments for housing." you are giving youselves away as a Tory party and you are being extremely naive, because you are ignoring the fact that this is exactly what he has done TWICE.
Now the one thing Pickles is not is unknowledgeable in the ways of local gov, Farm Terrace have put forward representations, and a plan has been forward that is exactly that. a plan for houses and a car park on the allotments. It is simply not credible to suggest that he has had the wool pulled over his eyes here, unless of course it was with his own acquiescence.
I would like to deal with your points on Global warming but think it is only fare we deal with a couple of other things first starting with this which you have ignored
because you have again ignored this point come on
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harry's Bar[/bold] wrote: As a mayoral candidate is it appropriate to be posting political views on a non political forum?[/p][/quote]It's relevant to the political article.[/p][/quote]yes and no Ie if you are concerned with the hospital fine but (and it is entirely up to you) if you rattle on about this or that UKIP meting it does come across as a sort of political spam thing (with my analytic hat on) Also with my analytic hat on I think you are going to find out just how nasty the Libdems can be, and just how in bedded they are here[/p][/quote]Thanks for the warning DKYN. At the end of the day I think our UKIP message is better than their LibDem message, and their actions of late have also very much let them down. Just as their national party is unravelling, so are their actions in Watford also unravelling as regards the "Health Campus" which is apparently devoid of health but full of housing. I doubt Pickles would have signed off the destruction of protected allotments for housing. We have said that if we are elected we will investigate this thoroughly and openly. At the same time, we will do our utmost to save the allotments unless it is too late.[/p][/quote]This I think is a major flaw with UKIP when you say "I doubt Pickles would have signed off the destruction of protected allotments for housing." you are giving youselves away as a Tory party and you are being extremely naive, because you are ignoring the fact that this is exactly what he has done TWICE. Now the one thing Pickles is not is unknowledgeable in the ways of local gov, Farm Terrace have put forward representations, and a plan has been forward that is exactly that. a plan for houses and a car park on the allotments. It is simply not credible to suggest that he has had the wool pulled over his eyes here, unless of course it was with his own acquiescence.[/p][/quote]I would like to deal with your points on Global warming but think it is only fare we deal with a couple of other things first starting with this which you have ignored[/p][/quote]because you have again ignored this point come on dontknowynot
  • Score: 0

4:19pm Sun 2 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

D_Penn wrote:
@BrianUKIP

"Talking to a Labour mate last night (we do mix with everyone you know) he tells me that dontknowynot is Councillor Ann Joynnes who boasts to anyone who will listen that she is being so clever “seeing off” UKIP on line"

That's interesting. If true and she's their best debater, then they are in worse trouble than I thought. I have talked with many socialists who at least have a deep understanding of the roots of their ideology and discussions with them are both fascinating and informative. What annoys me about DKYN is that all you get is the same simplistic soundbite claptrap trotted out with no detailed analysis behind it. It's like trying to debate with a child who doesn't listen to any viewpoint that's different to their own.
try answering the question then you may get a debate Why is it Mr Pickles can do no wrong??
BTW I am not Cllr Anne Joynes or indeed any other Cllr or prospective cllr
[quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: @BrianUKIP "Talking to a Labour mate last night (we do mix with everyone you know) he tells me that dontknowynot is Councillor Ann Joynnes who boasts to anyone who will listen that she is being so clever “seeing off” UKIP on line" That's interesting. If true and she's their best debater, then they are in worse trouble than I thought. I have talked with many socialists who at least have a deep understanding of the roots of their ideology and discussions with them are both fascinating and informative. What annoys me about DKYN is that all you get is the same simplistic soundbite claptrap trotted out with no detailed analysis behind it. It's like trying to debate with a child who doesn't listen to any viewpoint that's different to their own.[/p][/quote]try answering the question then you may get a debate Why is it Mr Pickles can do no wrong?? BTW I am not Cllr Anne Joynes or indeed any other Cllr or prospective cllr dontknowynot
  • Score: 0

4:29pm Sun 2 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

FYI the Q was and it was put B4 the convo went onto Climate change to which I will return later
This I think is a major flaw with UKIP
when you say "I doubt Pickles would have signed off the destruction of protected allotments for housing." you are giving youselves away as a Tory party and you are being extremely naive, because you are ignoring the fact that this is exactly what he has done TWICE.
Now the one thing Pickles is not is unknowledgeable in the ways of local gov, Farm Terrace have put forward representations, and a plan has been forward that is exactly that. a plan for houses and a car park on the allotments. It is simply not credible to suggest that he has had the wool pulled over his eyes here, unless of course it was with his own acquiescence.
FYI the Q was and it was put B4 the convo went onto Climate change to which I will return later This I think is a major flaw with UKIP when you say "I doubt Pickles would have signed off the destruction of protected allotments for housing." you are giving youselves away as a Tory party and you are being extremely naive, because you are ignoring the fact that this is exactly what he has done TWICE. Now the one thing Pickles is not is unknowledgeable in the ways of local gov, Farm Terrace have put forward representations, and a plan has been forward that is exactly that. a plan for houses and a car park on the allotments. It is simply not credible to suggest that he has had the wool pulled over his eyes here, unless of course it was with his own acquiescence. dontknowynot
  • Score: 0

4:58pm Sun 2 Feb 14

BrianUKIP says...

dontknowynot wrote:
D_Penn wrote:
@BrianUKIP

"Talking to a Labour mate last night (we do mix with everyone you know) he tells me that dontknowynot is Councillor Ann Joynnes who boasts to anyone who will listen that she is being so clever “seeing off” UKIP on line"

That's interesting. If true and she's their best debater, then they are in worse trouble than I thought. I have talked with many socialists who at least have a deep understanding of the roots of their ideology and discussions with them are both fascinating and informative. What annoys me about DKYN is that all you get is the same simplistic soundbite claptrap trotted out with no detailed analysis behind it. It's like trying to debate with a child who doesn't listen to any viewpoint that's different to their own.
try answering the question then you may get a debate Why is it Mr Pickles can do no wrong??
BTW I am not Cllr Anne Joynes or indeed any other Cllr or prospective cllr
Thank you Anne for correcting my spelling of your name.

If you are going to persist using dontknowynot at least we now have a better idea of your motivation.
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: @BrianUKIP "Talking to a Labour mate last night (we do mix with everyone you know) he tells me that dontknowynot is Councillor Ann Joynnes who boasts to anyone who will listen that she is being so clever “seeing off” UKIP on line" That's interesting. If true and she's their best debater, then they are in worse trouble than I thought. I have talked with many socialists who at least have a deep understanding of the roots of their ideology and discussions with them are both fascinating and informative. What annoys me about DKYN is that all you get is the same simplistic soundbite claptrap trotted out with no detailed analysis behind it. It's like trying to debate with a child who doesn't listen to any viewpoint that's different to their own.[/p][/quote]try answering the question then you may get a debate Why is it Mr Pickles can do no wrong?? BTW I am not Cllr Anne Joynes or indeed any other Cllr or prospective cllr[/p][/quote]Thank you Anne for correcting my spelling of your name. If you are going to persist using dontknowynot at least we now have a better idea of your motivation. BrianUKIP
  • Score: 2

4:59pm Sun 2 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

D_Penn wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
rest assured I have answers for all of your points, but can you please answer EU out said "I wish you would take your HRT tablets "dontknowynot"..... you know what you get like if you miss them! Vote UKIP. " Can you please explain how this can possibly be anything other than a sexist insult.
I'm still waiting for the answers.

As for the so called 'sexist' insult you keep blathering on about, I couldn't be less bothered. I am fed up with people like you who cannot wait for a chance to take offence. Okay, so your offended and I don't care. Do you know why?

You support a party that wrecked the country, took us into a dodgy war, ended up with millions unemployed and falling living standards, but all you want to do is moan that you believe that someone has thrown a sexist insult at you. You are so self centred that you think that more important than the state of the country.

So you're offended. Tough, you won't die, so get over it!
did I say I was offended, when was that then
As for your anti Labour rant just goes to prove you are a Tory party, a partyof the right
As for the judgement on the economy I would point out that no one in the Labour party made loans to the US sub prime market.
As to the iraq war in 2003 I would point out that Labour, and not just Labour but Blair won an election in 2005.
The fact is that in 2010 the country was in recovery and that this gov chocked of that recovery, has subsequently borrowed more money in three years than Labour did in 13.
As to the Sexist insult I at least respect your new found candor in admiting it is sexist and you just don't care

You might have noticed that having had a few slings and arrows thrown at me I have now dusted of the antagonistic hat and am preparing to put it on
[quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: rest assured I have answers for all of your points, but can you please answer EU out said "I wish you would take your HRT tablets "dontknowynot"..... you know what you get like if you miss them! Vote UKIP. " Can you please explain how this can possibly be anything other than a sexist insult.[/p][/quote]I'm still waiting for the answers. As for the so called 'sexist' insult you keep blathering on about, I couldn't be less bothered. I am fed up with people like you who cannot wait for a chance to take offence. Okay, so your offended and I don't care. Do you know why? You support a party that wrecked the country, took us into a dodgy war, ended up with millions unemployed and falling living standards, but all you want to do is moan that you believe that someone has thrown a sexist insult at you. You are so self centred that you think that more important than the state of the country. So you're offended. Tough, you won't die, so get over it![/p][/quote]did I say I was offended, when was that then As for your anti Labour rant just goes to prove you are a Tory party, a partyof the right As for the judgement on the economy I would point out that no one in the Labour party made loans to the US sub prime market. As to the iraq war in 2003 I would point out that Labour, and not just Labour but Blair won an election in 2005. The fact is that in 2010 the country was in recovery and that this gov chocked of that recovery, has subsequently borrowed more money in three years than Labour did in 13. As to the Sexist insult I at least respect your new found candor in admiting it is sexist and you just don't care You might have noticed that having had a few slings and arrows thrown at me I have now dusted of the antagonistic hat and am preparing to put it on dontknowynot
  • Score: -6

5:11pm Sun 2 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

dontknowynot wrote:
D_Penn wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
rest assured I have answers for all of your points, but can you please answer EU out said "I wish you would take your HRT tablets "dontknowynot"..... you know what you get like if you miss them! Vote UKIP. " Can you please explain how this can possibly be anything other than a sexist insult.
I'm still waiting for the answers.

As for the so called 'sexist' insult you keep blathering on about, I couldn't be less bothered. I am fed up with people like you who cannot wait for a chance to take offence. Okay, so your offended and I don't care. Do you know why?

You support a party that wrecked the country, took us into a dodgy war, ended up with millions unemployed and falling living standards, but all you want to do is moan that you believe that someone has thrown a sexist insult at you. You are so self centred that you think that more important than the state of the country.

So you're offended. Tough, you won't die, so get over it!
did I say I was offended, when was that then
As for your anti Labour rant just goes to prove you are a Tory party, a partyof the right
As for the judgement on the economy I would point out that no one in the Labour party made loans to the US sub prime market.
As to the iraq war in 2003 I would point out that Labour, and not just Labour but Blair won an election in 2005.
The fact is that in 2010 the country was in recovery and that this gov chocked of that recovery, has subsequently borrowed more money in three years than Labour did in 13.
As to the Sexist insult I at least respect your new found candor in admiting it is sexist and you just don't care

You might have noticed that having had a few slings and arrows thrown at me I have now dusted of the antagonistic hat and am preparing to put it on
oh and I am still waiting for an anawer

FYI the Q was and it was put B4 the convo went onto Climate change to which I will return later
This I think is a major flaw with UKIP
when you say "I doubt Pickles would have signed off the destruction of protected allotments for housing." you are giving youselves away as a Tory party and you are being extremely naive, because you are ignoring the fact that this is exactly what he has done TWICE.
Now the one thing Pickles is not is unknowledgeable in the ways of local gov, Farm Terrace have put forward representations, and a plan has been forward that is exactly that. a plan for houses and a car park on the allotments. It is simply not credible to suggest that he has had the wool pulled over his eyes here, unless of course it was with his own acquiescence
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: rest assured I have answers for all of your points, but can you please answer EU out said "I wish you would take your HRT tablets "dontknowynot"..... you know what you get like if you miss them! Vote UKIP. " Can you please explain how this can possibly be anything other than a sexist insult.[/p][/quote]I'm still waiting for the answers. As for the so called 'sexist' insult you keep blathering on about, I couldn't be less bothered. I am fed up with people like you who cannot wait for a chance to take offence. Okay, so your offended and I don't care. Do you know why? You support a party that wrecked the country, took us into a dodgy war, ended up with millions unemployed and falling living standards, but all you want to do is moan that you believe that someone has thrown a sexist insult at you. You are so self centred that you think that more important than the state of the country. So you're offended. Tough, you won't die, so get over it![/p][/quote]did I say I was offended, when was that then As for your anti Labour rant just goes to prove you are a Tory party, a partyof the right As for the judgement on the economy I would point out that no one in the Labour party made loans to the US sub prime market. As to the iraq war in 2003 I would point out that Labour, and not just Labour but Blair won an election in 2005. The fact is that in 2010 the country was in recovery and that this gov chocked of that recovery, has subsequently borrowed more money in three years than Labour did in 13. As to the Sexist insult I at least respect your new found candor in admiting it is sexist and you just don't care You might have noticed that having had a few slings and arrows thrown at me I have now dusted of the antagonistic hat and am preparing to put it on[/p][/quote]oh and I am still waiting for an anawer FYI the Q was and it was put B4 the convo went onto Climate change to which I will return later This I think is a major flaw with UKIP when you say "I doubt Pickles would have signed off the destruction of protected allotments for housing." you are giving youselves away as a Tory party and you are being extremely naive, because you are ignoring the fact that this is exactly what he has done TWICE. Now the one thing Pickles is not is unknowledgeable in the ways of local gov, Farm Terrace have put forward representations, and a plan has been forward that is exactly that. a plan for houses and a car park on the allotments. It is simply not credible to suggest that he has had the wool pulled over his eyes here, unless of course it was with his own acquiescence dontknowynot
  • Score: -1

6:01pm Sun 2 Feb 14

D_Penn says...

dontknowynot wrote:
D_Penn wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
rest assured I have answers for all of your points, but can you please answer EU out said "I wish you would take your HRT tablets "dontknowynot"..... you know what you get like if you miss them! Vote UKIP. " Can you please explain how this can possibly be anything other than a sexist insult.
I'm still waiting for the answers.

As for the so called 'sexist' insult you keep blathering on about, I couldn't be less bothered. I am fed up with people like you who cannot wait for a chance to take offence. Okay, so your offended and I don't care. Do you know why?

You support a party that wrecked the country, took us into a dodgy war, ended up with millions unemployed and falling living standards, but all you want to do is moan that you believe that someone has thrown a sexist insult at you. You are so self centred that you think that more important than the state of the country.

So you're offended. Tough, you won't die, so get over it!
did I say I was offended, when was that then
As for your anti Labour rant just goes to prove you are a Tory party, a partyof the right
As for the judgement on the economy I would point out that no one in the Labour party made loans to the US sub prime market.
As to the iraq war in 2003 I would point out that Labour, and not just Labour but Blair won an election in 2005.
The fact is that in 2010 the country was in recovery and that this gov chocked of that recovery, has subsequently borrowed more money in three years than Labour did in 13.
As to the Sexist insult I at least respect your new found candor in admiting it is sexist and you just don't care

You might have noticed that having had a few slings and arrows thrown at me I have now dusted of the antagonistic hat and am preparing to put it on
For someone who wasn't offended, you don't half go on about it.

Your above defence of Labour is hopeless I'm afraid. Sorry.
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: rest assured I have answers for all of your points, but can you please answer EU out said "I wish you would take your HRT tablets "dontknowynot"..... you know what you get like if you miss them! Vote UKIP. " Can you please explain how this can possibly be anything other than a sexist insult.[/p][/quote]I'm still waiting for the answers. As for the so called 'sexist' insult you keep blathering on about, I couldn't be less bothered. I am fed up with people like you who cannot wait for a chance to take offence. Okay, so your offended and I don't care. Do you know why? You support a party that wrecked the country, took us into a dodgy war, ended up with millions unemployed and falling living standards, but all you want to do is moan that you believe that someone has thrown a sexist insult at you. You are so self centred that you think that more important than the state of the country. So you're offended. Tough, you won't die, so get over it![/p][/quote]did I say I was offended, when was that then As for your anti Labour rant just goes to prove you are a Tory party, a partyof the right As for the judgement on the economy I would point out that no one in the Labour party made loans to the US sub prime market. As to the iraq war in 2003 I would point out that Labour, and not just Labour but Blair won an election in 2005. The fact is that in 2010 the country was in recovery and that this gov chocked of that recovery, has subsequently borrowed more money in three years than Labour did in 13. As to the Sexist insult I at least respect your new found candor in admiting it is sexist and you just don't care You might have noticed that having had a few slings and arrows thrown at me I have now dusted of the antagonistic hat and am preparing to put it on[/p][/quote]For someone who wasn't offended, you don't half go on about it. Your above defence of Labour is hopeless I'm afraid. Sorry. D_Penn
  • Score: -1

6:13pm Sun 2 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

D_Penn wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
D_Penn wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
rest assured I have answers for all of your points, but can you please answer EU out said "I wish you would take your HRT tablets "dontknowynot"..... you know what you get like if you miss them! Vote UKIP. " Can you please explain how this can possibly be anything other than a sexist insult.
I'm still waiting for the answers.

As for the so called 'sexist' insult you keep blathering on about, I couldn't be less bothered. I am fed up with people like you who cannot wait for a chance to take offence. Okay, so your offended and I don't care. Do you know why?

You support a party that wrecked the country, took us into a dodgy war, ended up with millions unemployed and falling living standards, but all you want to do is moan that you believe that someone has thrown a sexist insult at you. You are so self centred that you think that more important than the state of the country.

So you're offended. Tough, you won't die, so get over it!
did I say I was offended, when was that then
As for your anti Labour rant just goes to prove you are a Tory party, a partyof the right
As for the judgement on the economy I would point out that no one in the Labour party made loans to the US sub prime market.
As to the iraq war in 2003 I would point out that Labour, and not just Labour but Blair won an election in 2005.
The fact is that in 2010 the country was in recovery and that this gov chocked of that recovery, has subsequently borrowed more money in three years than Labour did in 13.
As to the Sexist insult I at least respect your new found candor in admiting it is sexist and you just don't care

You might have noticed that having had a few slings and arrows thrown at me I have now dusted of the antagonistic hat and am preparing to put it on
For someone who wasn't offended, you don't half go on about it.

Your above defence of Labour is hopeless I'm afraid. Sorry.
would you just answer the question re Mr Pickles instead of changing the subject.
This is a local issue you are standing in a local election please just answer the question then I will give move on to the other issues that have been raised,
Its only Logical
[quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: rest assured I have answers for all of your points, but can you please answer EU out said "I wish you would take your HRT tablets "dontknowynot"..... you know what you get like if you miss them! Vote UKIP. " Can you please explain how this can possibly be anything other than a sexist insult.[/p][/quote]I'm still waiting for the answers. As for the so called 'sexist' insult you keep blathering on about, I couldn't be less bothered. I am fed up with people like you who cannot wait for a chance to take offence. Okay, so your offended and I don't care. Do you know why? You support a party that wrecked the country, took us into a dodgy war, ended up with millions unemployed and falling living standards, but all you want to do is moan that you believe that someone has thrown a sexist insult at you. You are so self centred that you think that more important than the state of the country. So you're offended. Tough, you won't die, so get over it![/p][/quote]did I say I was offended, when was that then As for your anti Labour rant just goes to prove you are a Tory party, a partyof the right As for the judgement on the economy I would point out that no one in the Labour party made loans to the US sub prime market. As to the iraq war in 2003 I would point out that Labour, and not just Labour but Blair won an election in 2005. The fact is that in 2010 the country was in recovery and that this gov chocked of that recovery, has subsequently borrowed more money in three years than Labour did in 13. As to the Sexist insult I at least respect your new found candor in admiting it is sexist and you just don't care You might have noticed that having had a few slings and arrows thrown at me I have now dusted of the antagonistic hat and am preparing to put it on[/p][/quote]For someone who wasn't offended, you don't half go on about it. Your above defence of Labour is hopeless I'm afraid. Sorry.[/p][/quote]would you just answer the question re Mr Pickles instead of changing the subject. This is a local issue you are standing in a local election please just answer the question then I will give move on to the other issues that have been raised, Its only Logical dontknowynot
  • Score: 1

6:20pm Sun 2 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

dontknowynot wrote:
FYI the Q was and it was put B4 the convo went onto Climate change to which I will return later
This I think is a major flaw with UKIP
when you say "I doubt Pickles would have signed off the destruction of protected allotments for housing." you are giving youselves away as a Tory party and you are being extremely naive, because you are ignoring the fact that this is exactly what he has done TWICE.
Now the one thing Pickles is not is unknowledgeable in the ways of local gov, Farm Terrace have put forward representations, and a plan has been forward that is exactly that. a plan for houses and a car park on the allotments. It is simply not credible to suggest that he has had the wool pulled over his eyes here, unless of course it was with his own acquiescence.
in case you have forgotten this is the question
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: FYI the Q was and it was put B4 the convo went onto Climate change to which I will return later This I think is a major flaw with UKIP when you say "I doubt Pickles would have signed off the destruction of protected allotments for housing." you are giving youselves away as a Tory party and you are being extremely naive, because you are ignoring the fact that this is exactly what he has done TWICE. Now the one thing Pickles is not is unknowledgeable in the ways of local gov, Farm Terrace have put forward representations, and a plan has been forward that is exactly that. a plan for houses and a car park on the allotments. It is simply not credible to suggest that he has had the wool pulled over his eyes here, unless of course it was with his own acquiescence.[/p][/quote]in case you have forgotten this is the question dontknowynot
  • Score: 2

6:49pm Sun 2 Feb 14

D_Penn says...

@dontknowynot

Check back. I have never mentioned Pickles. That was someone else.
@dontknowynot Check back. I have never mentioned Pickles. That was someone else. D_Penn
  • Score: 0

6:55pm Sun 2 Feb 14

BrianUKIP says...

dontknowynot wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
FYI the Q was and it was put B4 the convo went onto Climate change to which I will return later
This I think is a major flaw with UKIP
when you say "I doubt Pickles would have signed off the destruction of protected allotments for housing." you are giving youselves away as a Tory party and you are being extremely naive, because you are ignoring the fact that this is exactly what he has done TWICE.
Now the one thing Pickles is not is unknowledgeable in the ways of local gov, Farm Terrace have put forward representations, and a plan has been forward that is exactly that. a plan for houses and a car park on the allotments. It is simply not credible to suggest that he has had the wool pulled over his eyes here, unless of course it was with his own acquiescence.
in case you have forgotten this is the question
Anne where are your Labour credentials you should be for building more homes.

Or have I misunderstood Labours policy on house building?
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: FYI the Q was and it was put B4 the convo went onto Climate change to which I will return later This I think is a major flaw with UKIP when you say "I doubt Pickles would have signed off the destruction of protected allotments for housing." you are giving youselves away as a Tory party and you are being extremely naive, because you are ignoring the fact that this is exactly what he has done TWICE. Now the one thing Pickles is not is unknowledgeable in the ways of local gov, Farm Terrace have put forward representations, and a plan has been forward that is exactly that. a plan for houses and a car park on the allotments. It is simply not credible to suggest that he has had the wool pulled over his eyes here, unless of course it was with his own acquiescence.[/p][/quote]in case you have forgotten this is the question[/p][/quote]Anne where are your Labour credentials you should be for building more homes. Or have I misunderstood Labours policy on house building? BrianUKIP
  • Score: -3

7:19pm Sun 2 Feb 14

Tony Noeu says...

Thanks god we have Brian to tell it as it is. Is that person really a councillor called Anne Joynes?

I've just googled her and she is on the Watford Labour Website. I really don't like the look of her but more importantly don't they vet people before they become Councillor. Her picture is next to some wet blanket called Matt Turmaine who I have never seen before in my life. In fact the only person I recognise and have ever seen is that scruffy looking man who I have seen in the Town Centre before (Nigel Bell) .No wonder Labour are losing votes to UKIP.
Thanks god we have Brian to tell it as it is. Is that person really a councillor called Anne Joynes? I've just googled her and she is on the Watford Labour Website. I really don't like the look of her but more importantly don't they vet people before they become Councillor. Her picture is next to some wet blanket called Matt Turmaine who I have never seen before in my life. In fact the only person I recognise and have ever seen is that scruffy looking man who I have seen in the Town Centre before (Nigel Bell) .No wonder Labour are losing votes to UKIP. Tony Noeu
  • Score: -1

7:26pm Sun 2 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

D_Penn wrote:
@dontknowynot

Check back. I have never mentioned Pickles. That was someone else.
Clearly you are correct here but this is a genuine question aimed at the Mayoral candidate , are you still on the committee?
The issue is .I believe relevant why does your party hate Labour and on this local issue why does it assume Mr Pickles would not do something that he clearly has done TWICE.
IT does your party no good to mob up on a member of the public in this way just as it does it no good to admit to sexisty abuse and not caring about it.
Neither is your Parlor game of guessing who a poster is.
Let me repeat I am not Anne although I believe she is a very clever and wise person and deeply flattered that you believe I am she.
What is it about your party that you hate Labour and are so insulting to women
[quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: @dontknowynot Check back. I have never mentioned Pickles. That was someone else.[/p][/quote]Clearly you are correct here but this is a genuine question aimed at the Mayoral candidate , are you still on the committee? The issue is .I believe relevant why does your party hate Labour and on this local issue why does it assume Mr Pickles would not do something that he clearly has done TWICE. IT does your party no good to mob up on a member of the public in this way just as it does it no good to admit to sexisty abuse and not caring about it. Neither is your Parlor game of guessing who a poster is. Let me repeat I am not Anne although I believe she is a very clever and wise person and deeply flattered that you believe I am she. What is it about your party that you hate Labour and are so insulting to women dontknowynot
  • Score: -1

7:30pm Sun 2 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

BrianUKIP wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
FYI the Q was and it was put B4 the convo went onto Climate change to which I will return later
This I think is a major flaw with UKIP
when you say "I doubt Pickles would have signed off the destruction of protected allotments for housing." you are giving youselves away as a Tory party and you are being extremely naive, because you are ignoring the fact that this is exactly what he has done TWICE.
Now the one thing Pickles is not is unknowledgeable in the ways of local gov, Farm Terrace have put forward representations, and a plan has been forward that is exactly that. a plan for houses and a car park on the allotments. It is simply not credible to suggest that he has had the wool pulled over his eyes here, unless of course it was with his own acquiescence.
in case you have forgotten this is the question
Anne where are your Labour credentials you should be for building more homes.

Or have I misunderstood Labours policy on house building?
As stated B4 I am not Anne I suggest that you try answering the question why your party thinks Mr Pickles would not do something he clearly has done twice
[quote][p][bold]BrianUKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: FYI the Q was and it was put B4 the convo went onto Climate change to which I will return later This I think is a major flaw with UKIP when you say "I doubt Pickles would have signed off the destruction of protected allotments for housing." you are giving youselves away as a Tory party and you are being extremely naive, because you are ignoring the fact that this is exactly what he has done TWICE. Now the one thing Pickles is not is unknowledgeable in the ways of local gov, Farm Terrace have put forward representations, and a plan has been forward that is exactly that. a plan for houses and a car park on the allotments. It is simply not credible to suggest that he has had the wool pulled over his eyes here, unless of course it was with his own acquiescence.[/p][/quote]in case you have forgotten this is the question[/p][/quote]Anne where are your Labour credentials you should be for building more homes. Or have I misunderstood Labours policy on house building?[/p][/quote]As stated B4 I am not Anne I suggest that you try answering the question why your party thinks Mr Pickles would not do something he clearly has done twice dontknowynot
  • Score: 0

7:35pm Sun 2 Feb 14

EU_OUT_NOW says...

Anne Joynes

Watford Borough Council
Leggatts Ward
Councillor Joynes is Whip of the Labour Group and a member of :

•Development Control Committee
•Planning Policy Committee
anne.joynes@watford.
gov.uk

Why do you hide behind "dontknowynot" Anne? None of the UKIP people do....
Anne Joynes Watford Borough Council Leggatts Ward Councillor Joynes is Whip of the Labour Group and a member of : •Development Control Committee •Planning Policy Committee anne.joynes@watford. gov.uk Why do you hide behind "dontknowynot" Anne? None of the UKIP people do.... EU_OUT_NOW
  • Score: -1

8:27pm Sun 2 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

EU_OUT_NOW wrote:
Anne Joynes

Watford Borough Council
Leggatts Ward
Councillor Joynes is Whip of the Labour Group and a member of :

•Development Control Committee
•Planning Policy Committee
anne.joynes@watford.

gov.uk

Why do you hide behind "dontknowynot" Anne? None of the UKIP people do....
I am not Anne Joynes sorry you have lost the little Parlor game.
Now try answering a question , why do you pretend your party is not a Tory party, not THE Tory party but a Tory Party non the less.
or:-
If it is not why does your party display such hatred of Labour and such a fondness for the Tory party; as evidenced by the denial that Eric Pickles has done wrong by Farm Terrace allotments in the face of overwhelming evidence he has (that is if any wrong has been done here and your party clearly thinks some has and wants the blame to sit on Dottys Shoulders)

Plus seeing as it is you what do you think about your Mayoral candidate accepting that "go take your HRT" is sexist and of no consequance.


come on then me ole mucker lets be avin you
[quote][p][bold]EU_OUT_NOW[/bold] wrote: Anne Joynes Watford Borough Council Leggatts Ward Councillor Joynes is Whip of the Labour Group and a member of : •Development Control Committee •Planning Policy Committee anne.joynes@watford. gov.uk Why do you hide behind "dontknowynot" Anne? None of the UKIP people do....[/p][/quote]I am not Anne Joynes sorry you have lost the little Parlor game. Now try answering a question , why do you pretend your party is not a Tory party, not THE Tory party but a Tory Party non the less. or:- If it is not why does your party display such hatred of Labour and such a fondness for the Tory party; as evidenced by the denial that Eric Pickles has done wrong by Farm Terrace allotments in the face of overwhelming evidence he has (that is if any wrong has been done here and your party clearly thinks some has and wants the blame to sit on Dottys Shoulders) Plus seeing as it is you what do you think about your Mayoral candidate accepting that "go take your HRT" is sexist and of no consequance. come on then me ole mucker lets be avin you dontknowynot
  • Score: 1

8:32pm Sun 2 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

there I go getting you UKIPers mixed up again you all seem so similar maybe you are all the same person
there I go getting you UKIPers mixed up again you all seem so similar maybe you are all the same person dontknowynot
  • Score: 0

8:49pm Sun 2 Feb 14

EU_OUT_NOW says...

dontknowynot wrote:
EU_OUT_NOW wrote:
Anne Joynes

Watford Borough Council
Leggatts Ward
Councillor Joynes is Whip of the Labour Group and a member of :

•Development Control Committee
•Planning Policy Committee
anne.joynes@watford.


gov.uk

Why do you hide behind "dontknowynot" Anne? None of the UKIP people do....
I am not Anne Joynes sorry you have lost the little Parlor game.
Now try answering a question , why do you pretend your party is not a Tory party, not THE Tory party but a Tory Party non the less.
or:-
If it is not why does your party display such hatred of Labour and such a fondness for the Tory party; as evidenced by the denial that Eric Pickles has done wrong by Farm Terrace allotments in the face of overwhelming evidence he has (that is if any wrong has been done here and your party clearly thinks some has and wants the blame to sit on Dottys Shoulders)

Plus seeing as it is you what do you think about your Mayoral candidate accepting that "go take your HRT" is sexist and of no consequance.


come on then me ole mucker lets be avin you
I said take a Valium, not a pick me up. What ever your taking I want some, it sure gives you verbal what not!!! me ole mucker, Oooo aarrrrr
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]EU_OUT_NOW[/bold] wrote: Anne Joynes Watford Borough Council Leggatts Ward Councillor Joynes is Whip of the Labour Group and a member of : •Development Control Committee •Planning Policy Committee anne.joynes@watford. gov.uk Why do you hide behind "dontknowynot" Anne? None of the UKIP people do....[/p][/quote]I am not Anne Joynes sorry you have lost the little Parlor game. Now try answering a question , why do you pretend your party is not a Tory party, not THE Tory party but a Tory Party non the less. or:- If it is not why does your party display such hatred of Labour and such a fondness for the Tory party; as evidenced by the denial that Eric Pickles has done wrong by Farm Terrace allotments in the face of overwhelming evidence he has (that is if any wrong has been done here and your party clearly thinks some has and wants the blame to sit on Dottys Shoulders) Plus seeing as it is you what do you think about your Mayoral candidate accepting that "go take your HRT" is sexist and of no consequance. come on then me ole mucker lets be avin you[/p][/quote]I said take a Valium, not a pick me up. What ever your taking I want some, it sure gives you verbal what not!!! me ole mucker, Oooo aarrrrr EU_OUT_NOW
  • Score: -2

8:54pm Sun 2 Feb 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

dontknowynot wrote:
EU_OUT_NOW wrote:
Anne Joynes

Watford Borough Council
Leggatts Ward
Councillor Joynes is Whip of the Labour Group and a member of :

•Development Control Committee
•Planning Policy Committee
anne.joynes@watford.


gov.uk

Why do you hide behind "dontknowynot" Anne? None of the UKIP people do....
I am not Anne Joynes sorry you have lost the little Parlor game.
Now try answering a question , why do you pretend your party is not a Tory party, not THE Tory party but a Tory Party non the less.
or:-
If it is not why does your party display such hatred of Labour and such a fondness for the Tory party; as evidenced by the denial that Eric Pickles has done wrong by Farm Terrace allotments in the face of overwhelming evidence he has (that is if any wrong has been done here and your party clearly thinks some has and wants the blame to sit on Dottys Shoulders)

Plus seeing as it is you what do you think about your Mayoral candidate accepting that "go take your HRT" is sexist and of no consequance.


come on then me ole mucker lets be avin you
DKYN

please allow me to answer.

I have no idea if it is true whether you are Anne. If you are, then hello Anne.

UKIP is a viable alternative for the Labour, Tory and LibDem party voters, supporters and members. We are getting them joining our party and they are welcome. They would not be joining if we were the same as any of the other parties, they are in fact joining because of exactly the opposite, because we are nothing like the other three parties and they like what we offer and what the other three parties do not offer.

UKIP does not hate any party, it does however disagree vehemently with certain policy principles of some other parties and also with how the other three parties treat the electorate. We believe in what we stand for.

UKIP is full of ex-Labour, ex-LibDem and ex-Conservatives, plus people who were previously turned off politics by the antics of the other three main parties.

I am standing to be the next Mayor of Watford and if elected I fully expect to work fairly with members of the other parties as elected to the council. There will be no party hatred from me, nor any favouritism.

As for Pickles, he got it completely wrong on Farm Terrace. No ifs, no buts, he got it wrong for Watford, just as the government inspectors got it wrong for TRDC with losing Green Belt land. I don't suppose Pickles or the inspectors will lose any sleep over the damage they do to both TRDC and Watford by their actions.
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]EU_OUT_NOW[/bold] wrote: Anne Joynes Watford Borough Council Leggatts Ward Councillor Joynes is Whip of the Labour Group and a member of : •Development Control Committee •Planning Policy Committee anne.joynes@watford. gov.uk Why do you hide behind "dontknowynot" Anne? None of the UKIP people do....[/p][/quote]I am not Anne Joynes sorry you have lost the little Parlor game. Now try answering a question , why do you pretend your party is not a Tory party, not THE Tory party but a Tory Party non the less. or:- If it is not why does your party display such hatred of Labour and such a fondness for the Tory party; as evidenced by the denial that Eric Pickles has done wrong by Farm Terrace allotments in the face of overwhelming evidence he has (that is if any wrong has been done here and your party clearly thinks some has and wants the blame to sit on Dottys Shoulders) Plus seeing as it is you what do you think about your Mayoral candidate accepting that "go take your HRT" is sexist and of no consequance. come on then me ole mucker lets be avin you[/p][/quote]DKYN please allow me to answer. I have no idea if it is true whether you are Anne. If you are, then hello Anne. UKIP is a viable alternative for the Labour, Tory and LibDem party voters, supporters and members. We are getting them joining our party and they are welcome. They would not be joining if we were the same as any of the other parties, they are in fact joining because of exactly the opposite, because we are nothing like the other three parties and they like what we offer and what the other three parties do not offer. UKIP does not hate any party, it does however disagree vehemently with certain policy principles of some other parties and also with how the other three parties treat the electorate. We believe in what we stand for. UKIP is full of ex-Labour, ex-LibDem and ex-Conservatives, plus people who were previously turned off politics by the antics of the other three main parties. I am standing to be the next Mayor of Watford and if elected I fully expect to work fairly with members of the other parties as elected to the council. There will be no party hatred from me, nor any favouritism. As for Pickles, he got it completely wrong on Farm Terrace. No ifs, no buts, he got it wrong for Watford, just as the government inspectors got it wrong for TRDC with losing Green Belt land. I don't suppose Pickles or the inspectors will lose any sleep over the damage they do to both TRDC and Watford by their actions. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: 0

8:55pm Sun 2 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

EU_OUT_NOW wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
EU_OUT_NOW wrote:
Anne Joynes

Watford Borough Council
Leggatts Ward
Councillor Joynes is Whip of the Labour Group and a member of :

•Development Control Committee
•Planning Policy Committee
anne.joynes@watford.



gov.uk

Why do you hide behind "dontknowynot" Anne? None of the UKIP people do....
I am not Anne Joynes sorry you have lost the little Parlor game.
Now try answering a question , why do you pretend your party is not a Tory party, not THE Tory party but a Tory Party non the less.
or:-
If it is not why does your party display such hatred of Labour and such a fondness for the Tory party; as evidenced by the denial that Eric Pickles has done wrong by Farm Terrace allotments in the face of overwhelming evidence he has (that is if any wrong has been done here and your party clearly thinks some has and wants the blame to sit on Dottys Shoulders)

Plus seeing as it is you what do you think about your Mayoral candidate accepting that "go take your HRT" is sexist and of no consequance.


come on then me ole mucker lets be avin you
I said take a Valium, not a pick me up. What ever your taking I want some, it sure gives you verbal what not!!! me ole mucker, Oooo aarrrrr
Well lets be having an answer, come on you do have one. or are you just going to spew some more bile.
[quote][p][bold]EU_OUT_NOW[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]EU_OUT_NOW[/bold] wrote: Anne Joynes Watford Borough Council Leggatts Ward Councillor Joynes is Whip of the Labour Group and a member of : •Development Control Committee •Planning Policy Committee anne.joynes@watford. gov.uk Why do you hide behind "dontknowynot" Anne? None of the UKIP people do....[/p][/quote]I am not Anne Joynes sorry you have lost the little Parlor game. Now try answering a question , why do you pretend your party is not a Tory party, not THE Tory party but a Tory Party non the less. or:- If it is not why does your party display such hatred of Labour and such a fondness for the Tory party; as evidenced by the denial that Eric Pickles has done wrong by Farm Terrace allotments in the face of overwhelming evidence he has (that is if any wrong has been done here and your party clearly thinks some has and wants the blame to sit on Dottys Shoulders) Plus seeing as it is you what do you think about your Mayoral candidate accepting that "go take your HRT" is sexist and of no consequance. come on then me ole mucker lets be avin you[/p][/quote]I said take a Valium, not a pick me up. What ever your taking I want some, it sure gives you verbal what not!!! me ole mucker, Oooo aarrrrr[/p][/quote]Well lets be having an answer, come on you do have one. or are you just going to spew some more bile. dontknowynot
  • Score: -1

9:23pm Sun 2 Feb 14

EU_OUT_NOW says...

dontknowynot wrote:
EU_OUT_NOW wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
EU_OUT_NOW wrote:
Anne Joynes

Watford Borough Council
Leggatts Ward
Councillor Joynes is Whip of the Labour Group and a member of :

•Development Control Committee
•Planning Policy Committee
anne.joynes@watford.




gov.uk

Why do you hide behind "dontknowynot" Anne? None of the UKIP people do....
I am not Anne Joynes sorry you have lost the little Parlor game.
Now try answering a question , why do you pretend your party is not a Tory party, not THE Tory party but a Tory Party non the less.
or:-
If it is not why does your party display such hatred of Labour and such a fondness for the Tory party; as evidenced by the denial that Eric Pickles has done wrong by Farm Terrace allotments in the face of overwhelming evidence he has (that is if any wrong has been done here and your party clearly thinks some has and wants the blame to sit on Dottys Shoulders)

Plus seeing as it is you what do you think about your Mayoral candidate accepting that "go take your HRT" is sexist and of no consequance.


come on then me ole mucker lets be avin you
I said take a Valium, not a pick me up. What ever your taking I want some, it sure gives you verbal what not!!! me ole mucker, Oooo aarrrrr
Well lets be having an answer, come on you do have one. or are you just going to spew some more bile.
Answers? I must have answers or I will thceem and thsceem! OCD???
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]EU_OUT_NOW[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]EU_OUT_NOW[/bold] wrote: Anne Joynes Watford Borough Council Leggatts Ward Councillor Joynes is Whip of the Labour Group and a member of : •Development Control Committee •Planning Policy Committee anne.joynes@watford. gov.uk Why do you hide behind "dontknowynot" Anne? None of the UKIP people do....[/p][/quote]I am not Anne Joynes sorry you have lost the little Parlor game. Now try answering a question , why do you pretend your party is not a Tory party, not THE Tory party but a Tory Party non the less. or:- If it is not why does your party display such hatred of Labour and such a fondness for the Tory party; as evidenced by the denial that Eric Pickles has done wrong by Farm Terrace allotments in the face of overwhelming evidence he has (that is if any wrong has been done here and your party clearly thinks some has and wants the blame to sit on Dottys Shoulders) Plus seeing as it is you what do you think about your Mayoral candidate accepting that "go take your HRT" is sexist and of no consequance. come on then me ole mucker lets be avin you[/p][/quote]I said take a Valium, not a pick me up. What ever your taking I want some, it sure gives you verbal what not!!! me ole mucker, Oooo aarrrrr[/p][/quote]Well lets be having an answer, come on you do have one. or are you just going to spew some more bile.[/p][/quote]Answers? I must have answers or I will thceem and thsceem! OCD??? EU_OUT_NOW
  • Score: 0

9:40pm Sun 2 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
EU_OUT_NOW wrote:
Anne Joynes

Watford Borough Council
Leggatts Ward
Councillor Joynes is Whip of the Labour Group and a member of :

•Development Control Committee
•Planning Policy Committee
anne.joynes@watford.



gov.uk

Why do you hide behind "dontknowynot" Anne? None of the UKIP people do....
I am not Anne Joynes sorry you have lost the little Parlor game.
Now try answering a question , why do you pretend your party is not a Tory party, not THE Tory party but a Tory Party non the less.
or:-
If it is not why does your party display such hatred of Labour and such a fondness for the Tory party; as evidenced by the denial that Eric Pickles has done wrong by Farm Terrace allotments in the face of overwhelming evidence he has (that is if any wrong has been done here and your party clearly thinks some has and wants the blame to sit on Dottys Shoulders)

Plus seeing as it is you what do you think about your Mayoral candidate accepting that "go take your HRT" is sexist and of no consequance.


come on then me ole mucker lets be avin you
DKYN

please allow me to answer.

I have no idea if it is true whether you are Anne. If you are, then hello Anne.

UKIP is a viable alternative for the Labour, Tory and LibDem party voters, supporters and members. We are getting them joining our party and they are welcome. They would not be joining if we were the same as any of the other parties, they are in fact joining because of exactly the opposite, because we are nothing like the other three parties and they like what we offer and what the other three parties do not offer.

UKIP does not hate any party, it does however disagree vehemently with certain policy principles of some other parties and also with how the other three parties treat the electorate. We believe in what we stand for.

UKIP is full of ex-Labour, ex-LibDem and ex-Conservatives, plus people who were previously turned off politics by the antics of the other three main parties.

I am standing to be the next Mayor of Watford and if elected I fully expect to work fairly with members of the other parties as elected to the council. There will be no party hatred from me, nor any favouritism.

As for Pickles, he got it completely wrong on Farm Terrace. No ifs, no buts, he got it wrong for Watford, just as the government inspectors got it wrong for TRDC with losing Green Belt land. I don't suppose Pickles or the inspectors will lose any sleep over the damage they do to both TRDC and Watford by their actions.
why thankyou
And it is moments like this that make it soooo worthwhile. you see actually changing your mind on Pickles is reward in itself because what you are now saying is at odds with what you said at 3.03 on fri and it is so rewarding to get this unequivocal statement from you.
That said the fact that it has taken so long does nothing to dispel the idea that your party is a Tory party and the amount of vitreal. bile and outright nastiness displayed towards myself Labour and Anne Joynes far outweighs any advancement of your party as something other than an anti leftist party of the right.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]EU_OUT_NOW[/bold] wrote: Anne Joynes Watford Borough Council Leggatts Ward Councillor Joynes is Whip of the Labour Group and a member of : •Development Control Committee •Planning Policy Committee anne.joynes@watford. gov.uk Why do you hide behind "dontknowynot" Anne? None of the UKIP people do....[/p][/quote]I am not Anne Joynes sorry you have lost the little Parlor game. Now try answering a question , why do you pretend your party is not a Tory party, not THE Tory party but a Tory Party non the less. or:- If it is not why does your party display such hatred of Labour and such a fondness for the Tory party; as evidenced by the denial that Eric Pickles has done wrong by Farm Terrace allotments in the face of overwhelming evidence he has (that is if any wrong has been done here and your party clearly thinks some has and wants the blame to sit on Dottys Shoulders) Plus seeing as it is you what do you think about your Mayoral candidate accepting that "go take your HRT" is sexist and of no consequance. come on then me ole mucker lets be avin you[/p][/quote]DKYN please allow me to answer. I have no idea if it is true whether you are Anne. If you are, then hello Anne. UKIP is a viable alternative for the Labour, Tory and LibDem party voters, supporters and members. We are getting them joining our party and they are welcome. They would not be joining if we were the same as any of the other parties, they are in fact joining because of exactly the opposite, because we are nothing like the other three parties and they like what we offer and what the other three parties do not offer. UKIP does not hate any party, it does however disagree vehemently with certain policy principles of some other parties and also with how the other three parties treat the electorate. We believe in what we stand for. UKIP is full of ex-Labour, ex-LibDem and ex-Conservatives, plus people who were previously turned off politics by the antics of the other three main parties. I am standing to be the next Mayor of Watford and if elected I fully expect to work fairly with members of the other parties as elected to the council. There will be no party hatred from me, nor any favouritism. As for Pickles, he got it completely wrong on Farm Terrace. No ifs, no buts, he got it wrong for Watford, just as the government inspectors got it wrong for TRDC with losing Green Belt land. I don't suppose Pickles or the inspectors will lose any sleep over the damage they do to both TRDC and Watford by their actions.[/p][/quote]why thankyou And it is moments like this that make it soooo worthwhile. you see actually changing your mind on Pickles is reward in itself because what you are now saying is at odds with what you said at 3.03 on fri and it is so rewarding to get this unequivocal statement from you. That said the fact that it has taken so long does nothing to dispel the idea that your party is a Tory party and the amount of vitreal. bile and outright nastiness displayed towards myself Labour and Anne Joynes far outweighs any advancement of your party as something other than an anti leftist party of the right. dontknowynot
  • Score: 1

9:46pm Sun 2 Feb 14

BrianUKIP says...

Anne you seem to have an awful lot of spare time on your hands for a busy local and County Councillor.

Why don’t you spend a little more time representing your electorate and a little less posting such puerile nonsense?

Your last sentence in your last post says so much about you;
“Answers? I must have answers or I will thceem and thsceem! OCD???”
Anne you seem to have an awful lot of spare time on your hands for a busy local and County Councillor. Why don’t you spend a little more time representing your electorate and a little less posting such puerile nonsense? Your last sentence in your last post says so much about you; “Answers? I must have answers or I will thceem and thsceem! OCD???” BrianUKIP
  • Score: -1

9:47pm Sun 2 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

@ EU_OUT_NOW
oh you are a cad.
Imagine that coming out with another negative remark, and another negative feminine image who would of thought it of you having more than one Misogynistic put down
@ EU_OUT_NOW oh you are a cad. Imagine that coming out with another negative remark, and another negative feminine image who would of thought it of you having more than one Misogynistic put down dontknowynot
  • Score: 1

9:50pm Sun 2 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

BrianUKIP wrote:
Anne you seem to have an awful lot of spare time on your hands for a busy local and County Councillor.

Why don’t you spend a little more time representing your electorate and a little less posting such puerile nonsense?

Your last sentence in your last post says so much about you;
“Answers? I must have answers or I will thceem and thsceem! OCD???”
oh and another one yawn.
So Brain what on earth makes you think I am the very wise and very wonderful Anne
[quote][p][bold]BrianUKIP[/bold] wrote: Anne you seem to have an awful lot of spare time on your hands for a busy local and County Councillor. Why don’t you spend a little more time representing your electorate and a little less posting such puerile nonsense? Your last sentence in your last post says so much about you; “Answers? I must have answers or I will thceem and thsceem! OCD???”[/p][/quote]oh and another one yawn. So Brain what on earth makes you think I am the very wise and very wonderful Anne dontknowynot
  • Score: 1

10:02pm Sun 2 Feb 14

BrianUKIP says...

dontknowynot wrote:
BrianUKIP wrote:
Anne you seem to have an awful lot of spare time on your hands for a busy local and County Councillor.

Why don’t you spend a little more time representing your electorate and a little less posting such puerile nonsense?

Your last sentence in your last post says so much about you;
“Answers? I must have answers or I will thceem and thsceem! OCD???”
oh and another one yawn.
So Brain what on earth makes you think I am the very wise and very wonderful Anne
Oh and another one yawn.

Read my previous posts.

You seem to respond so quickly to all the posts I hope you aren't becoming an obsessive?
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BrianUKIP[/bold] wrote: Anne you seem to have an awful lot of spare time on your hands for a busy local and County Councillor. Why don’t you spend a little more time representing your electorate and a little less posting such puerile nonsense? Your last sentence in your last post says so much about you; “Answers? I must have answers or I will thceem and thsceem! OCD???”[/p][/quote]oh and another one yawn. So Brain what on earth makes you think I am the very wise and very wonderful Anne[/p][/quote]Oh and another one yawn. Read my previous posts. You seem to respond so quickly to all the posts I hope you aren't becoming an obsessive? BrianUKIP
  • Score: 0

10:21pm Sun 2 Feb 14

D_Penn says...

@dontknowynot

I don't hate Labour. I hate what they have become. My mother was a lifelong Labour supporter but even she was disgusted with the last Labour government which bore no relation to the proud party of the past. It was full of hypocrites pretending to be the workers' friend whilst the leaders lined their own pockets. Meanwhile they spent money like water whilst raising taxes and destroying pensions. The shambles left behind when Labour lost power will still take years to put right. The coalition is absolutely useless but seems almost a model of excellence by comparison of what went on before. At least they can see the obvious that spending money when you're broke doesn't work - a simple piece of economics that is even now still beyond the wit of Milliband and Balls.
@dontknowynot I don't hate Labour. I hate what they have become. My mother was a lifelong Labour supporter but even she was disgusted with the last Labour government which bore no relation to the proud party of the past. It was full of hypocrites pretending to be the workers' friend whilst the leaders lined their own pockets. Meanwhile they spent money like water whilst raising taxes and destroying pensions. The shambles left behind when Labour lost power will still take years to put right. The coalition is absolutely useless but seems almost a model of excellence by comparison of what went on before. At least they can see the obvious that spending money when you're broke doesn't work - a simple piece of economics that is even now still beyond the wit of Milliband and Balls. D_Penn
  • Score: 1

10:31pm Sun 2 Feb 14

D_Penn says...

@dontknowynot

You said: "IT does your party no good to mob up on a member of the public in this way just as it does it no good to admit to sexisty abuse and not caring about it."

Now you are trying to play the 'poor little me' role. It doesn't wash coming from someone who posts aggressively attacking comments all the time.

So just come off it. If you want to dish it out all over the WO then you can jolly well stand and take it too. You are clearly no shrinking violet so don't waste time going for sympathy. You know the old saying; If you can't stand the heat...
@dontknowynot You said: "IT does your party no good to mob up on a member of the public in this way just as it does it no good to admit to sexisty abuse and not caring about it." Now you are trying to play the 'poor little me' role. It doesn't wash coming from someone who posts aggressively attacking comments all the time. So just come off it. If you want to dish it out all over the WO then you can jolly well stand and take it too. You are clearly no shrinking violet so don't waste time going for sympathy. You know the old saying; If you can't stand the heat... D_Penn
  • Score: 0

10:47pm Sun 2 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

BrianUKIP wrote:
Anne you seem to have an awful lot of spare time on your hands for a busy local and County Councillor.

Why don’t you spend a little more time representing your electorate and a little less posting such puerile nonsense?

Your last sentence in your last post says so much about you;
“Answers? I must have answers or I will thceem and thsceem! OCD???”
So D_Penn
back to type playing the man (or woman) instead of the ball
why would that be? becouse I have found you out, because I have influenced your Mayoral candidates view of Mr Pickles, because you are not to certain if I am the very excellent county cllr Anne Joynes or just because you have a bitter and twisted soul..
What heat?, it is not that I feel the heat just that you try to use it that is the issue, just like when you guys go on about ohh you must take your HRT calm down dear. blah blah
[quote][p][bold]BrianUKIP[/bold] wrote: Anne you seem to have an awful lot of spare time on your hands for a busy local and County Councillor. Why don’t you spend a little more time representing your electorate and a little less posting such puerile nonsense? Your last sentence in your last post says so much about you; “Answers? I must have answers or I will thceem and thsceem! OCD???”[/p][/quote]So D_Penn back to type playing the man (or woman) instead of the ball why would that be? becouse I have found you out, because I have influenced your Mayoral candidates view of Mr Pickles, because you are not to certain if I am the very excellent county cllr Anne Joynes or just because you have a bitter and twisted soul.. What heat?, it is not that I feel the heat just that you try to use it that is the issue, just like when you guys go on about ohh you must take your HRT calm down dear. blah blah dontknowynot
  • Score: -1

11:04pm Sun 2 Feb 14

BrianUKIP says...

Anne lets call it a night as some of us have to get up early for work.
Anne lets call it a night as some of us have to get up early for work. BrianUKIP
  • Score: 1

11:19pm Sun 2 Feb 14

D_Penn says...

@dontknowynot

Just caught up with another or your earlier comments...

"The fact is that in 2010 the country was in recovery and that this gov chocked of that recovery, has subsequently borrowed more money in three years than Labour did in 13."

The country was never in recovery in 2010! Labour had turned on the taps and was letting the country bleed to death. They knew from the polls that Brown was hugely unpopular and that they were about to be thrown out of power and, instead of doing the best for the country, they wanted to cause as much damage as possible to make it as hard for the incoming government as they could. A more irresponsible act of political skullduggery it is hard to imagine. The result for Britain was that a terrible situation was made much worse.

You jump on the extra borrowing the coalition has made, but of course you know that nobody could simply turn off all the taps left running by Labour overrnight. Your party created a near impossible economic disaster situation to manage that required more borrowing to take place just to cover Labour's deficit and keep the country running. It takes a long time to stop a tanker from sinking and to get it up and running again, which is why borrowing had to rise before it can be reduced again.

The problem with your party still has not gone away. Labour's economic think tank cannot think. It is just a tank and an empty one at that. Until quite recently they were praising Francoise Hollande for his economic approach which has now proved so disastrous for France that he has been forced to abandon it. Yet still Balls thinks that spending is the way to go. Blind contempt is all that the Labour party leadership stands for today. You know it's true.
@dontknowynot Just caught up with another or your earlier comments... "The fact is that in 2010 the country was in recovery and that this gov chocked of that recovery, has subsequently borrowed more money in three years than Labour did in 13." The country was never in recovery in 2010! Labour had turned on the taps and was letting the country bleed to death. They knew from the polls that Brown was hugely unpopular and that they were about to be thrown out of power and, instead of doing the best for the country, they wanted to cause as much damage as possible to make it as hard for the incoming government as they could. A more irresponsible act of political skullduggery it is hard to imagine. The result for Britain was that a terrible situation was made much worse. You jump on the extra borrowing the coalition has made, but of course you know that nobody could simply turn off all the taps left running by Labour overrnight. Your party created a near impossible economic disaster situation to manage that required more borrowing to take place just to cover Labour's deficit and keep the country running. It takes a long time to stop a tanker from sinking and to get it up and running again, which is why borrowing had to rise before it can be reduced again. The problem with your party still has not gone away. Labour's economic think tank cannot think. It is just a tank and an empty one at that. Until quite recently they were praising Francoise Hollande for his economic approach which has now proved so disastrous for France that he has been forced to abandon it. Yet still Balls thinks that spending is the way to go. Blind contempt is all that the Labour party leadership stands for today. You know it's true. D_Penn
  • Score: 1

11:28pm Sun 2 Feb 14

D_Penn says...

dontknowynot wrote:
BrianUKIP wrote: Anne you seem to have an awful lot of spare time on your hands for a busy local and County Councillor. Why don’t you spend a little more time representing your electorate and a little less posting such puerile nonsense? Your last sentence in your last post says so much about you; “Answers? I must have answers or I will thceem and thsceem! OCD???”
So D_Penn back to type playing the man (or woman) instead of the ball why would that be? becouse I have found you out, because I have influenced your Mayoral candidates view of Mr Pickles, because you are not to certain if I am the very excellent county cllr Anne Joynes or just because you have a bitter and twisted soul.. What heat?, it is not that I feel the heat just that you try to use it that is the issue, just like when you guys go on about ohh you must take your HRT calm down dear. blah blah
You're getting yor names mixed up again. You quote BrianUKIP and then begin, 'So D_Penn.'

It is not me that you are having this particular debate with.

However, as I'm dragged in, my view is to ask why don't you just say who you really are to end the argument. It's natural for people to be suspicious when someone skulks in the shadows. Everyone wonders what they have to hide.
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BrianUKIP[/bold] wrote: Anne you seem to have an awful lot of spare time on your hands for a busy local and County Councillor. Why don’t you spend a little more time representing your electorate and a little less posting such puerile nonsense? Your last sentence in your last post says so much about you; “Answers? I must have answers or I will thceem and thsceem! OCD???”[/p][/quote]So D_Penn back to type playing the man (or woman) instead of the ball why would that be? becouse I have found you out, because I have influenced your Mayoral candidates view of Mr Pickles, because you are not to certain if I am the very excellent county cllr Anne Joynes or just because you have a bitter and twisted soul.. What heat?, it is not that I feel the heat just that you try to use it that is the issue, just like when you guys go on about ohh you must take your HRT calm down dear. blah blah[/p][/quote]You're getting yor names mixed up again. You quote BrianUKIP and then begin, 'So D_Penn.' It is not me that you are having this particular debate with. However, as I'm dragged in, my view is to ask why don't you just say who you really are to end the argument. It's natural for people to be suspicious when someone skulks in the shadows. Everyone wonders what they have to hide. D_Penn
  • Score: 0

11:56pm Sun 2 Feb 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

dontknowynot wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
EU_OUT_NOW wrote:
Anne Joynes

Watford Borough Council
Leggatts Ward
Councillor Joynes is Whip of the Labour Group and a member of :

•Development Control Committee
•Planning Policy Committee
anne.joynes@watford.




gov.uk

Why do you hide behind "dontknowynot" Anne? None of the UKIP people do....
I am not Anne Joynes sorry you have lost the little Parlor game.
Now try answering a question , why do you pretend your party is not a Tory party, not THE Tory party but a Tory Party non the less.
or:-
If it is not why does your party display such hatred of Labour and such a fondness for the Tory party; as evidenced by the denial that Eric Pickles has done wrong by Farm Terrace allotments in the face of overwhelming evidence he has (that is if any wrong has been done here and your party clearly thinks some has and wants the blame to sit on Dottys Shoulders)

Plus seeing as it is you what do you think about your Mayoral candidate accepting that "go take your HRT" is sexist and of no consequance.


come on then me ole mucker lets be avin you
DKYN

please allow me to answer.

I have no idea if it is true whether you are Anne. If you are, then hello Anne.

UKIP is a viable alternative for the Labour, Tory and LibDem party voters, supporters and members. We are getting them joining our party and they are welcome. They would not be joining if we were the same as any of the other parties, they are in fact joining because of exactly the opposite, because we are nothing like the other three parties and they like what we offer and what the other three parties do not offer.

UKIP does not hate any party, it does however disagree vehemently with certain policy principles of some other parties and also with how the other three parties treat the electorate. We believe in what we stand for.

UKIP is full of ex-Labour, ex-LibDem and ex-Conservatives, plus people who were previously turned off politics by the antics of the other three main parties.

I am standing to be the next Mayor of Watford and if elected I fully expect to work fairly with members of the other parties as elected to the council. There will be no party hatred from me, nor any favouritism.

As for Pickles, he got it completely wrong on Farm Terrace. No ifs, no buts, he got it wrong for Watford, just as the government inspectors got it wrong for TRDC with losing Green Belt land. I don't suppose Pickles or the inspectors will lose any sleep over the damage they do to both TRDC and Watford by their actions.
why thankyou
And it is moments like this that make it soooo worthwhile. you see actually changing your mind on Pickles is reward in itself because what you are now saying is at odds with what you said at 3.03 on fri and it is so rewarding to get this unequivocal statement from you.
That said the fact that it has taken so long does nothing to dispel the idea that your party is a Tory party and the amount of vitreal. bile and outright nastiness displayed towards myself Labour and Anne Joynes far outweighs any advancement of your party as something other than an anti leftist party of the right.
Let's try and be fair here. I have not changed my mind at all, there was no need.

I said I thought alleged misrepresentation from the local council playing up the Health Campus aspect requiring the allotments would have given reason for Pickles to grant the loss of protection for the allotments. That still stands. I still doubt he would have just given up protected allotment status without a health campus reason pressing on him.

We now know that there is little health and much housing going on down there. I feel misled by our council.

Regardless of his reasoning behind granting the loss of protection he has made a mistake in my opinion. The allotments should have been protected and remained protected.

If I get elected I will do all I can within reason to save the allotments. SJ is doing a marvellous job trying to save them and is an inspiration. I wish we had her in UKIP.

We are UKIP, nothing else. We do not hate other parties at all, we just believe we offer an alternative vision of how this country should be run and who should run it.

Many people agree with us. If Labour members wanted to leave Labour to join a Tory party, they would surely go to the Tories, no?

The fact they don't leave Labour to go to the Tories must say something to you?

The fact they leave the Labour party to join UKIP must say something to you surely?

UKIP are not the Tory party, we are the UKIP party.

And we're here to stay.

What's more, I want your second vote.

What's more, I think you might give it to me.
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]EU_OUT_NOW[/bold] wrote: Anne Joynes Watford Borough Council Leggatts Ward Councillor Joynes is Whip of the Labour Group and a member of : •Development Control Committee •Planning Policy Committee anne.joynes@watford. gov.uk Why do you hide behind "dontknowynot" Anne? None of the UKIP people do....[/p][/quote]I am not Anne Joynes sorry you have lost the little Parlor game. Now try answering a question , why do you pretend your party is not a Tory party, not THE Tory party but a Tory Party non the less. or:- If it is not why does your party display such hatred of Labour and such a fondness for the Tory party; as evidenced by the denial that Eric Pickles has done wrong by Farm Terrace allotments in the face of overwhelming evidence he has (that is if any wrong has been done here and your party clearly thinks some has and wants the blame to sit on Dottys Shoulders) Plus seeing as it is you what do you think about your Mayoral candidate accepting that "go take your HRT" is sexist and of no consequance. come on then me ole mucker lets be avin you[/p][/quote]DKYN please allow me to answer. I have no idea if it is true whether you are Anne. If you are, then hello Anne. UKIP is a viable alternative for the Labour, Tory and LibDem party voters, supporters and members. We are getting them joining our party and they are welcome. They would not be joining if we were the same as any of the other parties, they are in fact joining because of exactly the opposite, because we are nothing like the other three parties and they like what we offer and what the other three parties do not offer. UKIP does not hate any party, it does however disagree vehemently with certain policy principles of some other parties and also with how the other three parties treat the electorate. We believe in what we stand for. UKIP is full of ex-Labour, ex-LibDem and ex-Conservatives, plus people who were previously turned off politics by the antics of the other three main parties. I am standing to be the next Mayor of Watford and if elected I fully expect to work fairly with members of the other parties as elected to the council. There will be no party hatred from me, nor any favouritism. As for Pickles, he got it completely wrong on Farm Terrace. No ifs, no buts, he got it wrong for Watford, just as the government inspectors got it wrong for TRDC with losing Green Belt land. I don't suppose Pickles or the inspectors will lose any sleep over the damage they do to both TRDC and Watford by their actions.[/p][/quote]why thankyou And it is moments like this that make it soooo worthwhile. you see actually changing your mind on Pickles is reward in itself because what you are now saying is at odds with what you said at 3.03 on fri and it is so rewarding to get this unequivocal statement from you. That said the fact that it has taken so long does nothing to dispel the idea that your party is a Tory party and the amount of vitreal. bile and outright nastiness displayed towards myself Labour and Anne Joynes far outweighs any advancement of your party as something other than an anti leftist party of the right.[/p][/quote]Let's try and be fair here. I have not changed my mind at all, there was no need. I said I thought alleged misrepresentation from the local council playing up the Health Campus aspect requiring the allotments would have given reason for Pickles to grant the loss of protection for the allotments. That still stands. I still doubt he would have just given up protected allotment status without a health campus reason pressing on him. We now know that there is little health and much housing going on down there. I feel misled by our council. Regardless of his reasoning behind granting the loss of protection he has made a mistake in my opinion. The allotments should have been protected and remained protected. If I get elected I will do all I can within reason to save the allotments. SJ is doing a marvellous job trying to save them and is an inspiration. I wish we had her in UKIP. We are UKIP, nothing else. We do not hate other parties at all, we just believe we offer an alternative vision of how this country should be run and who should run it. Many people agree with us. If Labour members wanted to leave Labour to join a Tory party, they would surely go to the Tories, no? The fact they don't leave Labour to go to the Tories must say something to you? The fact they leave the Labour party to join UKIP must say something to you surely? UKIP are not the Tory party, we are the UKIP party. And we're here to stay. What's more, I want your second vote. What's more, I think you might give it to me. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: -1

12:01am Mon 3 Feb 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

D_Penn wrote:
@dontknowynot

I don't hate Labour. I hate what they have become. My mother was a lifelong Labour supporter but even she was disgusted with the last Labour government which bore no relation to the proud party of the past. It was full of hypocrites pretending to be the workers' friend whilst the leaders lined their own pockets. Meanwhile they spent money like water whilst raising taxes and destroying pensions. The shambles left behind when Labour lost power will still take years to put right. The coalition is absolutely useless but seems almost a model of excellence by comparison of what went on before. At least they can see the obvious that spending money when you're broke doesn't work - a simple piece of economics that is even now still beyond the wit of Milliband and Balls.
Let us not forget that despite the cuts the national debt is going through the roof under this government and will get worse before 2015.

You would expect the Tories to be doing better than this on the economy. I wonder why they are not?

It does seem that Balls is more about image than reality. 50p tax rate is a mistake.
[quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: @dontknowynot I don't hate Labour. I hate what they have become. My mother was a lifelong Labour supporter but even she was disgusted with the last Labour government which bore no relation to the proud party of the past. It was full of hypocrites pretending to be the workers' friend whilst the leaders lined their own pockets. Meanwhile they spent money like water whilst raising taxes and destroying pensions. The shambles left behind when Labour lost power will still take years to put right. The coalition is absolutely useless but seems almost a model of excellence by comparison of what went on before. At least they can see the obvious that spending money when you're broke doesn't work - a simple piece of economics that is even now still beyond the wit of Milliband and Balls.[/p][/quote]Let us not forget that despite the cuts the national debt is going through the roof under this government and will get worse before 2015. You would expect the Tories to be doing better than this on the economy. I wonder why they are not? It does seem that Balls is more about image than reality. 50p tax rate is a mistake. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: -1

12:17am Mon 3 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

Oh my little UKIP devotees
You seem to hang on to my every word, you are demanding like little children, not that you are little children forsouth you have a website and are all grown men and indeed grey haired in many cases so no you are not children, yet strangely you hurl insults in a childlike way. You must be poets I think poets are always searching for that inner child so that is it you are all poets .
As little poets I will excuse your flitting about from this wild unfounded accusation to another, your inability to keep on topic born out of primitive needs to dominate the perceived female, well actually I won’t but that will wait as will your Tory Tea party economics.
As promised I am returning to the subject of the environment, it is quite clear that the he UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) fifth assessment, AR5 says that there is a 95% chance of climate change being man made. By that I mean Man being the Main cause. This I hold to be an authoritive report and if you want to refute it feel free but you should have equally authoritive reports if that is what you want to attempt.
I hold 95% to be a very high level of proof not certainty in a scientific sense, but very high. The notion of 100% certainty or beyond reasonable doubt is appropriate to some things Criminal prosecutions certain scientific experiments, but it is not universal even in science where probability does come into play. In a civil court the burdon is the balance of probabiltys, its not that simple as 50/50 but even if the Burdon was on those seeking to say it was man made then 95% would be a slam duck case. So yes absolutely it is down to man in a large part irrespective of the position of the deputy leader of your party.
As to how we are affected it is by the weather, that much is obvious and yes LSC makes a valid point about our interaction building on flood plains etc, and yes “der Water Lane” etc is fair comment, you could go further and go der Watford from “Water” and “ford”
Whilst talking about water it is water that is key to our weather in the northen hemisphere and that is driving such things as the retreat of the arctic ice sheet, that is it holds the heat and warms the polar ice cap because there is no land mass underneath it as it does this weather is influenced and there is an interplay, iiin a fundamentally different way than with the antartic.
On the Subject of Coal well it s dirty and not everything is all bad, yet with gasification processes it can be less dirty, and we do have a lot of coal in the ground, as we did 30 years ago when the pits were closed by the Tory government strange that you should bemoan the loss, but at the time the Tory gov priorty was to smash the NUM the fact that they had to destroy the coal industry to do it, well that’s by the by.
We had Gas to rely on so we did and well we used that all up and had to import it from elsewhere, but that didn’t matter Sid made a quid in the dash for gas. Now I know its rhyming couplets and really I think I should do better especially as you think I am Anne , but I am not a poet and will stay on topic. Again short termism and a narrow political agenda squandered our fossil fuels.
You raise the subject of fracking as some sort of answer but we are a small nation we are not USA and there are very real fears about fracking held by Farmers, the NFU, community groups and many many individuals, these are born out of the examples in the US. But the clincher for me is that the companys doing it here cannot get Liabilty insurance to cover their Liabilty and are being given licenses without having to, this is madness as the gov is underwriting their risk, yes if it all goes wrong we pay for the clean up or farmers losses.
Hard nosed business men have no faith in fracking and won’t cover the losses here, madness why are we letting it happen.
But because UKIP say so we should go for it despite all this, why because the deputy leader does not believe it is a danger just like he does not believe in man made climate change.
We are told wind power is to expensive yet encouraged to go nuclear at vastly inflated prices, nuclear that was touted as the cheap option has failed to live up to its promise, plus quite incredibly we will have to continue paying to keep the waste effectively for ever, sheer madness.

BTW I thought Ed balls would be your hero after all he formulated the Labour party policy to keep us out of the Euro when the Tory oarty would have had us join.
Oh my little UKIP devotees You seem to hang on to my every word, you are demanding like little children, not that you are little children forsouth you have a website and are all grown men and indeed grey haired in many cases so no you are not children, yet strangely you hurl insults in a childlike way. You must be poets I think poets are always searching for that inner child so that is it you are all poets . As little poets I will excuse your flitting about from this wild unfounded accusation to another, your inability to keep on topic born out of primitive needs to dominate the perceived female, well actually I won’t but that will wait as will your Tory Tea party economics. As promised I am returning to the subject of the environment, it is quite clear that the he UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) fifth assessment, AR5 says that there is a 95% chance of climate change being man made. By that I mean Man being the Main cause. This I hold to be an authoritive report and if you want to refute it feel free but you should have equally authoritive reports if that is what you want to attempt. I hold 95% to be a very high level of proof not certainty in a scientific sense, but very high. The notion of 100% certainty or beyond reasonable doubt is appropriate to some things Criminal prosecutions certain scientific experiments, but it is not universal even in science where probability does come into play. In a civil court the burdon is the balance of probabiltys, its not that simple as 50/50 but even if the Burdon was on those seeking to say it was man made then 95% would be a slam duck case. So yes absolutely it is down to man in a large part irrespective of the position of the deputy leader of your party. As to how we are affected it is by the weather, that much is obvious and yes LSC makes a valid point about our interaction building on flood plains etc, and yes “der Water Lane” etc is fair comment, you could go further and go der Watford from “Water” and “ford” Whilst talking about water it is water that is key to our weather in the northen hemisphere and that is driving such things as the retreat of the arctic ice sheet, that is it holds the heat and warms the polar ice cap because there is no land mass underneath it as it does this weather is influenced and there is an interplay, iiin a fundamentally different way than with the antartic. On the Subject of Coal well it s dirty and not everything is all bad, yet with gasification processes it can be less dirty, and we do have a lot of coal in the ground, as we did 30 years ago when the pits were closed by the Tory government strange that you should bemoan the loss, but at the time the Tory gov priorty was to smash the NUM the fact that they had to destroy the coal industry to do it, well that’s by the by. We had Gas to rely on so we did and well we used that all up and had to import it from elsewhere, but that didn’t matter Sid made a quid in the dash for gas. Now I know its rhyming couplets and really I think I should do better especially as you think I am Anne , but I am not a poet and will stay on topic. Again short termism and a narrow political agenda squandered our fossil fuels. You raise the subject of fracking as some sort of answer but we are a small nation we are not USA and there are very real fears about fracking held by Farmers, the NFU, community groups and many many individuals, these are born out of the examples in the US. But the clincher for me is that the companys doing it here cannot get Liabilty insurance to cover their Liabilty and are being given licenses without having to, this is madness as the gov is underwriting their risk, yes if it all goes wrong we pay for the clean up or farmers losses. Hard nosed business men have no faith in fracking and won’t cover the losses here, madness why are we letting it happen. But because UKIP say so we should go for it despite all this, why because the deputy leader does not believe it is a danger just like he does not believe in man made climate change. We are told wind power is to expensive yet encouraged to go nuclear at vastly inflated prices, nuclear that was touted as the cheap option has failed to live up to its promise, plus quite incredibly we will have to continue paying to keep the waste effectively for ever, sheer madness. BTW I thought Ed balls would be your hero after all he formulated the Labour party policy to keep us out of the Euro when the Tory oarty would have had us join. dontknowynot
  • Score: 1

1:44am Mon 3 Feb 14

D_Penn says...

@dontknowynot

There is a 100% chance that climate change is natural. That is because it has always changed, long beore mankind even walked the earth.

I have been in science long enough to know that scientists are easily swayed by evidence and then completely change their mind when alternative evidence comes around. For years everyone 'knew' the universe was static and unchanging. Then everyone was astounded when it was discovered it was expanding. For most of my life, every astronomer was debating whether the universe would expand forever, stop expanding or eventually start to collapse on itself. Then recently, out of the blue, it was discovered that the rate of expansion of the universe was actually accelerating! If anyone had put forward that scenario ten years ago they would have been treated as totally mad.

My point is science is littered with examples where the arrogant majority believed one thing, convinced all the public they were right and then ended up with egg all over their face when they had to admit they were absolutely wrong.

The fact that ALL the climate models have failed to predict why the earth has not warmed for the last thirteen years shows that there is a deep flaw somewhere. The chief effect of that failure to date is that doom merchants like you have been forced to shiftily change the marketing speak and talk about 'climate change' instead of 'global warming' in an attempt to keep the green gravy train flowing.

The other effect is that many clmate scientists are running around like headless chickens trying to understand what on earth is going on. They seem unable to accept that they were wrong. They are hugely embarrassed that having predicted imminent disaster and an artic free of ice and polar bear extinction that, ahem, it doesn't seem to be happening. Now, in desperation, they are trying to look, not for global warming, but any climate change in order to justify the billions upon billions of pounds wasted on going green on their say so. Of course, they will always find climate change because nature assures that it always has and always will. So now all they have to do is convince themselves and everyone else that any change they discover taking place has to be man's fault and then it's everyone back on the green gravy train. David Cameron has already jumped on that bandwagon. When asked if he thought that this winter's floods were caused by climate change he answered, 'Yes, I think it probably is.'. Ridiculous.

To be clear, I do not rule out the possibility that mankind may be having an effect and even that it may be significant. My annoyance is that the jury is still out and much research is needed and proper unequivocal evidence collected. Once the job is done properly, it may even turn out that the earth is cooling naturally which is more than countering man's pathetic input. That is the sort of counter-intuitive punch that nature can often hit the arrogant scientist with, so it's important that all the money-making posturing stops and we go back to doing proper science in an unbiased and calm way until we get proper models making good predictions.

It is clear that until we know what is really going on we should not be shooting grotesquely expensive arrows in the dark on green policies. That piece of common sense is totally lost on politicians, particulary those in the EU.

Finally, I note that you have attacked virtually all methods from which Britain can supply its energy needs. So please tell me how you intend to keep the lights burning across the UK. Oh, sorry, I forgot. Labour dithered and never did come up with a viable plan did they?
@dontknowynot There is a 100% chance that climate change is natural. That is because it has always changed, long beore mankind even walked the earth. I have been in science long enough to know that scientists are easily swayed by evidence and then completely change their mind when alternative evidence comes around. For years everyone 'knew' the universe was static and unchanging. Then everyone was astounded when it was discovered it was expanding. For most of my life, every astronomer was debating whether the universe would expand forever, stop expanding or eventually start to collapse on itself. Then recently, out of the blue, it was discovered that the rate of expansion of the universe was actually accelerating! If anyone had put forward that scenario ten years ago they would have been treated as totally mad. My point is science is littered with examples where the arrogant majority believed one thing, convinced all the public they were right and then ended up with egg all over their face when they had to admit they were absolutely wrong. The fact that ALL the climate models have failed to predict why the earth has not warmed for the last thirteen years shows that there is a deep flaw somewhere. The chief effect of that failure to date is that doom merchants like you have been forced to shiftily change the marketing speak and talk about 'climate change' instead of 'global warming' in an attempt to keep the green gravy train flowing. The other effect is that many clmate scientists are running around like headless chickens trying to understand what on earth is going on. They seem unable to accept that they were wrong. They are hugely embarrassed that having predicted imminent disaster and an artic free of ice and polar bear extinction that, ahem, it doesn't seem to be happening. Now, in desperation, they are trying to look, not for global warming, but any climate change in order to justify the billions upon billions of pounds wasted on going green on their say so. Of course, they will always find climate change because nature assures that it always has and always will. So now all they have to do is convince themselves and everyone else that any change they discover taking place has to be man's fault and then it's everyone back on the green gravy train. David Cameron has already jumped on that bandwagon. When asked if he thought that this winter's floods were caused by climate change he answered, 'Yes, I think it probably is.'. Ridiculous. To be clear, I do not rule out the possibility that mankind may be having an effect and even that it may be significant. My annoyance is that the jury is still out and much research is needed and proper unequivocal evidence collected. Once the job is done properly, it may even turn out that the earth is cooling naturally which is more than countering man's pathetic input. That is the sort of counter-intuitive punch that nature can often hit the arrogant scientist with, so it's important that all the money-making posturing stops and we go back to doing proper science in an unbiased and calm way until we get proper models making good predictions. It is clear that until we know what is really going on we should not be shooting grotesquely expensive arrows in the dark on green policies. That piece of common sense is totally lost on politicians, particulary those in the EU. Finally, I note that you have attacked virtually all methods from which Britain can supply its energy needs. So please tell me how you intend to keep the lights burning across the UK. Oh, sorry, I forgot. Labour dithered and never did come up with a viable plan did they? D_Penn
  • Score: -2

5:16am Mon 3 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

OH there you are, you are so devoted to my every word maybe because you have a yearning to converse with Anne Joynes, whom I am not by the way, did I mention that, I don’t want you to waste your time thinking you are talking to the superb councillor Anne Joynes and it just being little ole me you know, so maybe you might want to stop reading now as I am not who you desire me to be.
You do talk such rot 100% chance of something being so is certainty; your statement is clearly Wrong!!! I cannot believe that you can expect anyone to accept as 100% the fact that scientists have been wrong in the past on disparate things as proof that they must be wrong now, it is just plain awful reasoning.
The fact is that peak Arctic sea ice and min arctic sea ice have been falling for the last twenty years, yes with a bit if ebb and flow but the trend has ben noticeably and dramatically downward. For instance in 1981 the peak was 30,000KM3 and min was about 20,000km3 in 2011 that was a max of about 22,000 and a min of less than 5000km3 this year the peak is set to be below 15000km3
Now while scientists set out worst case scenarios and I believe the current one is ice free arctic in two years they also set out more likely outcomes and that is ten years being, the fact that say 2 years ago they said it could be ice free in two years and it is not does not make them wrong because it was only a week prediction or chance. They are dealing in probability not certainty, in much the same way as Electoral Calculus are dealing with probability when they say you will have no MPs in 2015.
But that is an aside in terms of geography or whatever you want to call it an ice free Arctic is an imminent probability and the trend if ploted on a graph points very clearly to this being within twenty years or if there is a downward turn within 2
This from may 2013 may help
http://www.theguardi
an.com/environment/e
arth-insight/2013/ma
y/02/white-house-arc
tic-ice-death-spiral predicts among other things more extreme weather partly based on changes to the Jet stream "The loss of Arctic summer sea ice and the rapid warming of the Far North are altering the jet stream over North America, Europe, and Russia. Scientists are now just beginning to understand how these profound shifts may be increasing the likelihood of more persistent and extreme weather." Now this year we have seen by far and away the wettest dec &Jan on record due to exactly this.
I am sorry but you are wrong the white house is looking into what may be the consequences we are today suffering from the consequences and you along with your party have your head in the sand.
As to rubbishing all the energy sources I have not I have merely stated that the reliance on Marketization of our natural resources has resulted in us abandoning coal for Gas, and using up all the gas making us reliant on imported gas, you can find no fault with that so you say I wrote something else, as is your way.
I often look to see how the world of say insurance or business view these things, hard nosed business have no time for sentiment, they say bigger risk of extreme weather right bigger premiums, this has happened, Cripes we won’t cover that again this has happened and was indeed one of the first indicators that Climate change was accepted as happening. It is as stated a very big indicator that there are very real and serious concerns about fracking in the UK that they won’t insure the Liabilty, this is not tree hugging environmentalist but the toughest of tough business folk utterly skeptical about fracking in the UK.
I have stated the truth re Nuclear we are still paying today for the storage of the waste from the first KW generated its madness it’s the power source that keeps on costing, we are now embarking on a Nuclear program in which the costs are far in excess of how much we pay for electricity from other sources, madness
As for DC I may return to him, but for now I would like you to just apply yourself to the task of finding a rational reasoned and logical argument to back up what you and your party say on Climate change, I realize theses concepts might be alien to you so there is no rush.
OH there you are, you are so devoted to my every word maybe because you have a yearning to converse with Anne Joynes, whom I am not by the way, did I mention that, I don’t want you to waste your time thinking you are talking to the superb councillor Anne Joynes and it just being little ole me you know, so maybe you might want to stop reading now as I am not who you desire me to be. You do talk such rot 100% chance of something being so is certainty; your statement is clearly Wrong!!! I cannot believe that you can expect anyone to accept as 100% the fact that scientists have been wrong in the past on disparate things as proof that they must be wrong now, it is just plain awful reasoning. The fact is that peak Arctic sea ice and min arctic sea ice have been falling for the last twenty years, yes with a bit if ebb and flow but the trend has ben noticeably and dramatically downward. For instance in 1981 the peak was 30,000KM3 and min was about 20,000km3 in 2011 that was a max of about 22,000 and a min of less than 5000km3 this year the peak is set to be below 15000km3 Now while scientists set out worst case scenarios and I believe the current one is ice free arctic in two years they also set out more likely outcomes and that is ten years being, the fact that say 2 years ago they said it could be ice free in two years and it is not does not make them wrong because it was only a week prediction or chance. They are dealing in probability not certainty, in much the same way as Electoral Calculus are dealing with probability when they say you will have no MPs in 2015. But that is an aside in terms of geography or whatever you want to call it an ice free Arctic is an imminent probability and the trend if ploted on a graph points very clearly to this being within twenty years or if there is a downward turn within 2 This from may 2013 may help http://www.theguardi an.com/environment/e arth-insight/2013/ma y/02/white-house-arc tic-ice-death-spiral predicts among other things more extreme weather partly based on changes to the Jet stream "The loss of Arctic summer sea ice and the rapid warming of the Far North are altering the jet stream over North America, Europe, and Russia. Scientists are now just beginning to understand how these profound shifts may be increasing the likelihood of more persistent and extreme weather." Now this year we have seen by far and away the wettest dec &Jan on record due to exactly this. I am sorry but you are wrong the white house is looking into what may be the consequences we are today suffering from the consequences and you along with your party have your head in the sand. As to rubbishing all the energy sources I have not I have merely stated that the reliance on Marketization of our natural resources has resulted in us abandoning coal for Gas, and using up all the gas making us reliant on imported gas, you can find no fault with that so you say I wrote something else, as is your way. I often look to see how the world of say insurance or business view these things, hard nosed business have no time for sentiment, they say bigger risk of extreme weather right bigger premiums, this has happened, Cripes we won’t cover that again this has happened and was indeed one of the first indicators that Climate change was accepted as happening. It is as stated a very big indicator that there are very real and serious concerns about fracking in the UK that they won’t insure the Liabilty, this is not tree hugging environmentalist but the toughest of tough business folk utterly skeptical about fracking in the UK. I have stated the truth re Nuclear we are still paying today for the storage of the waste from the first KW generated its madness it’s the power source that keeps on costing, we are now embarking on a Nuclear program in which the costs are far in excess of how much we pay for electricity from other sources, madness As for DC I may return to him, but for now I would like you to just apply yourself to the task of finding a rational reasoned and logical argument to back up what you and your party say on Climate change, I realize theses concepts might be alien to you so there is no rush. dontknowynot
  • Score: -4

7:15am Mon 3 Feb 14

BrianUKIP says...

Anne look back on the times of your postings on here and please realise you have become an obsessive.

For your own sake "get a life".
Anne look back on the times of your postings on here and please realise you have become an obsessive. For your own sake "get a life". BrianUKIP
  • Score: 4

7:59am Mon 3 Feb 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

Climate scientists have in the past been proven to be bending the truth by manipulating statistical data. Shameful I know, but it happened.

That's a fact. Scientists can be and have been dishonest over this issue.

The scientists in question were being funded for this work by the government. If there had been no evidence of man-made climate change their funding would dry up and that would never do.

There are people out there who want there to be man-made climate change. They want a way to force the world to change and do what they tell them to do. They also want more tax money.

There are lies, dammn lies and statistics.

We have scientists in whose interest it is to find man-made climate climate change, it pays their own gravy train.

-------

So scientists have proven, statistically, more or less, by selecting what data they want to observe and what data they do not want to observe, that statistically speaking climate change is man-made. Fair enough. If you want to believe it.

With the same level of scientific statistical certainty I can prove that eating ice cream is directly related to drowning at sea.

A Climate scientist (or statistician) could point at this data and say it is conclusive proof eating ice cream causes drowning at sea. How certain? Maybe 95%. Beyond reasonable doubt in any case.

So, what do we do, ban ice-cream before the bodies washing up on the beach become unmanageable? Tax ice cream heavily to pay for extra cre(a)matoria?

It's actually completely untrue, you will be pleased to hear, eating ice cream does not cause deaths by drowning at sea, but statistically it is provable that it does.

I suppose what I am saying is this, beware scientists with an agenda that pays their wages and who might be selective with the statistics to prove their point.

Scientists are not saints, they are people, and people are not just fallible, they can be dishonest particularly where large sums of money are concerned or they have their own agenda, as we have seen before with climate change scientists.

Statistics can be used for good, but can just as easily be used for evil and to support a lie, or even a dammn lie.

Finally, imagine a lie big enough to fool people and raise unbelievable amounts of money in taxes.

Why wouldn't unscrupulous governments like such a thing, a stick to beat and manipulate the people with and to raise the sort of taxes that would be otherwise impossible?

There has always been climate change.

There are extremes of weather that are now often classed as man-made climate change. We used to call it extreme weather and marvel at the power of mother nature, secure in the knowledge that spring would follow winter and that summer would follow spring, and that we would have climate change all year round. It was just the way of things.

Now we have the same things, but they are taxed.

Who could have thought of taxing the weather in Britain and convincing the population it was good for them? The man's a genius! An evil genius maybe, but a genius just the same.

Where's James bond when you need him?
Climate scientists have in the past been proven to be bending the truth by manipulating statistical data. Shameful I know, but it happened. That's a fact. Scientists can be and have been dishonest over this issue. The scientists in question were being funded for this work by the government. If there had been no evidence of man-made climate change their funding would dry up and that would never do. There are people out there who want there to be man-made climate change. They want a way to force the world to change and do what they tell them to do. They also want more tax money. There are lies, dammn lies and statistics. We have scientists in whose interest it is to find man-made climate climate change, it pays their own gravy train. ------- So scientists have proven, statistically, more or less, by selecting what data they want to observe and what data they do not want to observe, that statistically speaking climate change is man-made. Fair enough. If you want to believe it. With the same level of scientific statistical certainty I can prove that eating ice cream is directly related to drowning at sea. A Climate scientist (or statistician) could point at this data and say it is conclusive proof eating ice cream causes drowning at sea. How certain? Maybe 95%. Beyond reasonable doubt in any case. So, what do we do, ban ice-cream before the bodies washing up on the beach become unmanageable? Tax ice cream heavily to pay for extra cre(a)matoria? It's actually completely untrue, you will be pleased to hear, eating ice cream does not cause deaths by drowning at sea, but statistically it is provable that it does. I suppose what I am saying is this, beware scientists with an agenda that pays their wages and who might be selective with the statistics to prove their point. Scientists are not saints, they are people, and people are not just fallible, they can be dishonest particularly where large sums of money are concerned or they have their own agenda, as we have seen before with climate change scientists. Statistics can be used for good, but can just as easily be used for evil and to support a lie, or even a dammn lie. Finally, imagine a lie big enough to fool people and raise unbelievable amounts of money in taxes. Why wouldn't unscrupulous governments like such a thing, a stick to beat and manipulate the people with and to raise the sort of taxes that would be otherwise impossible? There has always been climate change. There are extremes of weather that are now often classed as man-made climate change. We used to call it extreme weather and marvel at the power of mother nature, secure in the knowledge that spring would follow winter and that summer would follow spring, and that we would have climate change all year round. It was just the way of things. Now we have the same things, but they are taxed. Who could have thought of taxing the weather in Britain and convincing the population it was good for them? The man's a genius! An evil genius maybe, but a genius just the same. Where's James bond when you need him? Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: -1

9:14am Mon 3 Feb 14

D_Penn says...

@dontknowynot

First, I don't care who you really are, but I am disappointed when I see people involving themselves in political debate yet they hide behind anonymity. I have no issue with people using an online handle, but most will reveal their real name if pushed unless it would make life personally difficult (I accept that some trolls in some forums have, in the past, driven people off the net). I am also disappointed that you consistantly avoid the offer to meet UKIP people and have a debate. If you enjoy politics it makes no sense to avoid learning about us and maybe correct your many misconceptions you keep repeating.

I am surprised you attacked my 100% certainty of natural climate change. It's 100% certain because it is proven. It changes by the hour, day, week, month, decade, century, millenium and over the eons. Fact.

You argument over arctic ice is ridiculous. Last year the ice was thicker that in the last ten years. Also, we have only being monitoring the ice for a few decades since since satellites arrived. We do not know the past history at all.
In the victorian era when the planet cooled significantly there might have been record amounts of ice. In the heatwave in the middle ages it could have all virtually disappeared. We just do not know how much it changes naturally, so to say the recent thinning must be mankind's fault is ridiculous. ( I note that in the sixties when ships reported increasing amounts of ice, many scientists started to argue that we should be preparing to face a new ice age. If we had the daft reactionary politics of today, no doubt the 'EU' would have begun forcing people to move south before disaster struck!)

Scientists are well aware of the quite massive variations of climate that occurred in history, but they still cannot explain the mechanisms that caused the changes although they do not blame man's activity for them as it was pre-industrial. The bottom line is that it is only very recently that we have been trying to understand all the natural variations that drive earth's climate. We have discovered that it is fiendishly complex, based on planetry position, earth's tilt, volcanic activity, ocean current flows, continental drift changes etc. etc., the chaotic mix of which combine patterns on patterns which defeat the most powerful computers and climate models. So for example, you won't find a scientist who doesn't beleive that the earth will have more ice ages, but you won't find any agreement on when it will happen. Even though this will be massive, we still have no way to predict when it will happen or how fast. That alone should tell you how poor our understanding of climate still is. You need to stop being fooled by the media who give the impression that we are on top of it. We are not.

We are still barely scratching the surface of understanding, yet to hear many scientists speak you would think that it is all done and dusted. The Guardian seems to think so (no surprise there), but I prefer to wait until I see proper empirical evidence and working climate models before I'll get off the fence.

Even then, if it turns out that man is damaging his own future then It will only change if the massive polluters change their ways. US, China etc. My approach would still be that, as a small nation, I would not make unilateral changes that would enrich the massive polluters whilst impoverishing the people of this country yet would make no difference to the future. I do not believe in gesture politics which is exactly what green policies being enacted across Europe is at the moment.
@dontknowynot First, I don't care who you really are, but I am disappointed when I see people involving themselves in political debate yet they hide behind anonymity. I have no issue with people using an online handle, but most will reveal their real name if pushed unless it would make life personally difficult (I accept that some trolls in some forums have, in the past, driven people off the net). I am also disappointed that you consistantly avoid the offer to meet UKIP people and have a debate. If you enjoy politics it makes no sense to avoid learning about us and maybe correct your many misconceptions you keep repeating. I am surprised you attacked my 100% certainty of natural climate change. It's 100% certain because it is proven. It changes by the hour, day, week, month, decade, century, millenium and over the eons. Fact. You argument over arctic ice is ridiculous. Last year the ice was thicker that in the last ten years. Also, we have only being monitoring the ice for a few decades since since satellites arrived. We do not know the past history at all. In the victorian era when the planet cooled significantly there might have been record amounts of ice. In the heatwave in the middle ages it could have all virtually disappeared. We just do not know how much it changes naturally, so to say the recent thinning must be mankind's fault is ridiculous. ( I note that in the sixties when ships reported increasing amounts of ice, many scientists started to argue that we should be preparing to face a new ice age. If we had the daft reactionary politics of today, no doubt the 'EU' would have begun forcing people to move south before disaster struck!) Scientists are well aware of the quite massive variations of climate that occurred in history, but they still cannot explain the mechanisms that caused the changes although they do not blame man's activity for them as it was pre-industrial. The bottom line is that it is only very recently that we have been trying to understand all the natural variations that drive earth's climate. We have discovered that it is fiendishly complex, based on planetry position, earth's tilt, volcanic activity, ocean current flows, continental drift changes etc. etc., the chaotic mix of which combine patterns on patterns which defeat the most powerful computers and climate models. So for example, you won't find a scientist who doesn't beleive that the earth will have more ice ages, but you won't find any agreement on when it will happen. Even though this will be massive, we still have no way to predict when it will happen or how fast. That alone should tell you how poor our understanding of climate still is. You need to stop being fooled by the media who give the impression that we are on top of it. We are not. We are still barely scratching the surface of understanding, yet to hear many scientists speak you would think that it is all done and dusted. The Guardian seems to think so (no surprise there), but I prefer to wait until I see proper empirical evidence and working climate models before I'll get off the fence. Even then, if it turns out that man is damaging his own future then It will only change if the massive polluters change their ways. US, China etc. My approach would still be that, as a small nation, I would not make unilateral changes that would enrich the massive polluters whilst impoverishing the people of this country yet would make no difference to the future. I do not believe in gesture politics which is exactly what green policies being enacted across Europe is at the moment. D_Penn
  • Score: -2

9:17am Mon 3 Feb 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

Gesture politics.

You won't get that with a UKIP Mayor.
Gesture politics. You won't get that with a UKIP Mayor. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: -1

12:33pm Mon 3 Feb 14

Harry's Bar says...

EU_OUT_NOW wrote:
Harry's Bar wrote:
As a mayoral candidate is it appropriate to be posting political views on a non political forum?
Did you miss the headline???

"Vice chairman of UKIP Watford, Phil Cox, unveiled as party's mayoral candidate"

Point made I think.
I meant in general really, not in relation to this article.
[quote][p][bold]EU_OUT_NOW[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harry's Bar[/bold] wrote: As a mayoral candidate is it appropriate to be posting political views on a non political forum?[/p][/quote]Did you miss the headline??? "Vice chairman of UKIP Watford, Phil Cox, unveiled as party's mayoral candidate" Point made I think.[/p][/quote]I meant in general really, not in relation to this article. Harry's Bar
  • Score: 0

12:35pm Mon 3 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

I am so touched by your concern Brian you are a darling aren’t you
PC & DP well it is so kind of you to illuminate the good people of Watford with your party’s view on climate change, a mixture of bovine excrement and denial, but never mind it is now clear for the people of Watford to read, oh hang on its only you UKIPers and me on here.
Needless to say I disagree time will tell and I am certain it will tell that you are wrong.
For example DP you cite a micro change from one to three month’s observation to counter a trend of fifty years, you are simply wrong and wrong headed on this it is reminiscent of the arguments out forward about Acid Rain what was it “you have always had acid rain because of volcanoes”.
PC your attempt to reduce to the absurd whilst amusing will not convince anybody, climate change is a reality and your party’s Denial stance is Walter Mittyesc in the extreme.
So I wonder what has happened to UKIP common sense, nowt it never was there
Vote UKIP you know it makes nonsense
I am so touched by your concern Brian you are a darling aren’t you PC & DP well it is so kind of you to illuminate the good people of Watford with your party’s view on climate change, a mixture of bovine excrement and denial, but never mind it is now clear for the people of Watford to read, oh hang on its only you UKIPers and me on here. Needless to say I disagree time will tell and I am certain it will tell that you are wrong. For example DP you cite a micro change from one to three month’s observation to counter a trend of fifty years, you are simply wrong and wrong headed on this it is reminiscent of the arguments out forward about Acid Rain what was it “you have always had acid rain because of volcanoes”. PC your attempt to reduce to the absurd whilst amusing will not convince anybody, climate change is a reality and your party’s Denial stance is Walter Mittyesc in the extreme. So I wonder what has happened to UKIP common sense, nowt it never was there Vote UKIP you know it makes nonsense dontknowynot
  • Score: -2

12:43pm Mon 3 Feb 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

DKYN,

climate change is a reality. We both agree on that.

Where we differ is over whether these changes are significantly caused or affected by the activities of mankind and whether impoverishing people with green taxes and building windmills will be able to arrest the climate changes happening.

I don't buy it, particularly when you look at the complete folly of windmills and carbon taxes and credits.

That's common sense.
DKYN, climate change is a reality. We both agree on that. Where we differ is over whether these changes are significantly caused or affected by the activities of mankind and whether impoverishing people with green taxes and building windmills will be able to arrest the climate changes happening. I don't buy it, particularly when you look at the complete folly of windmills and carbon taxes and credits. That's common sense. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: -2

12:46pm Mon 3 Feb 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

Local issues now DKYN.

Are you going to give me your second vote, or do you prefer LibDems to UKIP for Mayor?
Local issues now DKYN. Are you going to give me your second vote, or do you prefer LibDems to UKIP for Mayor? Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: -1

1:00pm Mon 3 Feb 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

Harry's Bar wrote:
EU_OUT_NOW wrote:
Harry's Bar wrote:
As a mayoral candidate is it appropriate to be posting political views on a non political forum?
Did you miss the headline???

"Vice chairman of UKIP Watford, Phil Cox, unveiled as party's mayoral candidate"

Point made I think.
I meant in general really, not in relation to this article.
So long as I do not hide my identity like some councillors from other parties it should be a positive thing.

It seems the Mayors husband pens under a number of aliases, male and female. There's something wrong in that I would argue.

If you post and you are an elected official, then you should have the courage to post under your own name.

I can only assume these elected councillors would be ashamed to post under their real names the stuff they post under their assumed names. Having read their posts, I can fully understand that.

The solution is this. Stop posting, post more sensibly and honestly or post and be dammned, for they surely will be.
[quote][p][bold]Harry's Bar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]EU_OUT_NOW[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harry's Bar[/bold] wrote: As a mayoral candidate is it appropriate to be posting political views on a non political forum?[/p][/quote]Did you miss the headline??? "Vice chairman of UKIP Watford, Phil Cox, unveiled as party's mayoral candidate" Point made I think.[/p][/quote]I meant in general really, not in relation to this article.[/p][/quote]So long as I do not hide my identity like some councillors from other parties it should be a positive thing. It seems the Mayors husband pens under a number of aliases, male and female. There's something wrong in that I would argue. If you post and you are an elected official, then you should have the courage to post under your own name. I can only assume these elected councillors would be ashamed to post under their real names the stuff they post under their assumed names. Having read their posts, I can fully understand that. The solution is this. Stop posting, post more sensibly and honestly or post and be dammned, for they surely will be. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: 0

1:14pm Mon 3 Feb 14

Popeonarope says...

All parties have a few oddballs in their ranks.
I am firmly on the fence with all politicians as i see no difference between their own agendas, nest feathering and indifference to the issues we have in this country regardless of party affiliations.
The local microcosm of the national scene is similar in that we have individuals who are just as sincere when they have to be but in actually have very little ability to affect change.
Perhaps UKIP are able to build on recent successes and (Sorry Tony) put the fear of god into the big three but until they rid themselves of lunatics such as David Silvester et al i cannot vote for them.

Are you a religious individual Mr Cox?
All parties have a few oddballs in their ranks. I am firmly on the fence with all politicians as i see no difference between their own agendas, nest feathering and indifference to the issues we have in this country regardless of party affiliations. The local microcosm of the national scene is similar in that we have individuals who are just as sincere when they have to be but in actually have very little ability to affect change. Perhaps UKIP are able to build on recent successes and (Sorry Tony) put the fear of god into the big three but until they rid themselves of lunatics such as David Silvester et al i cannot vote for them. Are you a religious individual Mr Cox? Popeonarope
  • Score: 2

1:35pm Mon 3 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
Local issues now DKYN.

Are you going to give me your second vote, or do you prefer LibDems to UKIP for Mayor?
So PC what is reqd to stand for mayor, all thistalk of climate change is bringing out the Walter Mitty in me, now is there a deposit reqd or just nominations and seconders.
I could stand on a DKYN ticket then you guys would realize I was not ANNE, my understanding is that we are about to have a load of Romanians come over here. In preparation for this I have allready put it in my manifesto to hod town wide celebrations for National Great Union Day celebrating the Union of Transylvania with Romania, also for St Andrews day.
I am thinking of going further and building social housing on Cassiobery park for them, they can then come over and their children will have that new free school to go to excellant
Plus of course you guys will find out who I am, and of course all my little UKIP devotees are bound to v0te for me
I do think thou PB that you have a bit of nerve saying what is and is not a local issue, surly today of all days Climate change is a local issue, and going forward we will have to work with the river peeps and other Local authorities to manage the situation
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: Local issues now DKYN. Are you going to give me your second vote, or do you prefer LibDems to UKIP for Mayor?[/p][/quote]So PC what is reqd to stand for mayor, all thistalk of climate change is bringing out the Walter Mitty in me, now is there a deposit reqd or just nominations and seconders. I could stand on a DKYN ticket then you guys would realize I was not ANNE, my understanding is that we are about to have a load of Romanians come over here. In preparation for this I have allready put it in my manifesto to hod town wide celebrations for National Great Union Day celebrating the Union of Transylvania with Romania, also for St Andrews day. I am thinking of going further and building social housing on Cassiobery park for them, they can then come over and their children will have that new free school to go to excellant Plus of course you guys will find out who I am, and of course all my little UKIP devotees are bound to v0te for me I do think thou PB that you have a bit of nerve saying what is and is not a local issue, surly today of all days Climate change is a local issue, and going forward we will have to work with the river peeps and other Local authorities to manage the situation dontknowynot
  • Score: 0

1:39pm Mon 3 Feb 14

JohnnyHornet says...

garston tony wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
garston tony wrote: I'm actually pretty sure Mr Cox is sincere in his beliefs about UKIP and how they will be a breath of fresh air in politics, but should he become Mayor I dont think it'll take long for those beliefs to come crashing down and whilst he may try to prevail UKIP will be shown to be like any other political party out there. Good luck to you however, I might just vote for you as pretty much anything is better than Dotty
Blow me down with a feather! Tony, you don't know how much that means to me to get your backing. I'm actually overwhelmed! Thank you.
Dont thank me, I think if you were to win no matter how sincere you are at wanting to be better than the rest you'll eventually get dragged down to their level.

Thats not an attack on you personally, just a realistic comment on politics in general and living with the reality instead of idealistic theory. UKIP is no different to any other party in many ways
"UKIP is no different to any other party in many ways", Please allude Tony as they haven't had a chance yet and it's totally wrong to suggest they are no different, from what I have seen they are in fact a breath of fresh air, very much needed in the stale corruptness of modern day politics, the good thing about UKIP at a local level is they are not whipped to a party line on issues, meaning they can truly work for the local electorate rather than be dictated to by Westminster, which ultimately should make a significant improvement in services delivered by the local authority.....And on another point raised here about Cllr David Sylvester's remarks they were made before he defected from the Tories, not big hubbub when he said them, but because he's UKIP the dishonest media took up their usual biased mantle, but if anyone took what he said with any seriousness, I would not only doubt Sylvester but the person who viewed it in such a way, All of the electorate at all levels in the UK need to seriously look at where the LibLabCon (AKA European National Party ) have / are leading this country, believe me we are not going to get many more chance to keep our independent sovereignty, so start in May Vote UKIP, Vote Phil Cox.
[quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: I'm actually pretty sure Mr Cox is sincere in his beliefs about UKIP and how they will be a breath of fresh air in politics, but should he become Mayor I dont think it'll take long for those beliefs to come crashing down and whilst he may try to prevail UKIP will be shown to be like any other political party out there. Good luck to you however, I might just vote for you as pretty much anything is better than Dotty[/p][/quote]Blow me down with a feather! Tony, you don't know how much that means to me to get your backing. I'm actually overwhelmed! Thank you.[/p][/quote]Dont thank me, I think if you were to win no matter how sincere you are at wanting to be better than the rest you'll eventually get dragged down to their level. Thats not an attack on you personally, just a realistic comment on politics in general and living with the reality instead of idealistic theory. UKIP is no different to any other party in many ways[/p][/quote]"UKIP is no different to any other party in many ways", Please allude Tony as they haven't had a chance yet and it's totally wrong to suggest they are no different, from what I have seen they are in fact a breath of fresh air, very much needed in the stale corruptness of modern day politics, the good thing about UKIP at a local level is they are not whipped to a party line on issues, meaning they can truly work for the local electorate rather than be dictated to by Westminster, which ultimately should make a significant improvement in services delivered by the local authority.....And on another point raised here about Cllr David Sylvester's remarks they were made before he defected from the Tories, not big hubbub when he said them, but because he's UKIP the dishonest media took up their usual biased mantle, but if anyone took what he said with any seriousness, I would not only doubt Sylvester but the person who viewed it in such a way, All of the electorate at all levels in the UK need to seriously look at where the LibLabCon (AKA European National Party ) have / are leading this country, believe me we are not going to get many more chance to keep our independent sovereignty, so start in May Vote UKIP, Vote Phil Cox. JohnnyHornet
  • Score: 1

1:46pm Mon 3 Feb 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

Popeonarope wrote:
All parties have a few oddballs in their ranks.
I am firmly on the fence with all politicians as i see no difference between their own agendas, nest feathering and indifference to the issues we have in this country regardless of party affiliations.
The local microcosm of the national scene is similar in that we have individuals who are just as sincere when they have to be but in actually have very little ability to affect change.
Perhaps UKIP are able to build on recent successes and (Sorry Tony) put the fear of god into the big three but until they rid themselves of lunatics such as David Silvester et al i cannot vote for them.

Are you a religious individual Mr Cox?
I am not religious in the least.

I see no role for religion in politics.

I do however strongly believe in the rights of others to hold religious beliefs and not be persecuted for them.

I hope you will be equally critical of the other parties who have councillors or MPs whose beliefs or actions are unacceptable or strange. Think LibDems who blow up Town Centres in Wales (18 year jail), Labour councillor in Whitby who has fathered an alien child (how strange can you get?), and the Tory MP from whom Mr Sylvester defected, and who recently held a Nazi-themed party in the Alps.


No party is perfect, but of all of them UKIP has the best ethos. That's why I am in UKIP. I hope you will consider voting for UKIP.
[quote][p][bold]Popeonarope[/bold] wrote: All parties have a few oddballs in their ranks. I am firmly on the fence with all politicians as i see no difference between their own agendas, nest feathering and indifference to the issues we have in this country regardless of party affiliations. The local microcosm of the national scene is similar in that we have individuals who are just as sincere when they have to be but in actually have very little ability to affect change. Perhaps UKIP are able to build on recent successes and (Sorry Tony) put the fear of god into the big three but until they rid themselves of lunatics such as David Silvester et al i cannot vote for them. Are you a religious individual Mr Cox?[/p][/quote]I am not religious in the least. I see no role for religion in politics. I do however strongly believe in the rights of others to hold religious beliefs and not be persecuted for them. I hope you will be equally critical of the other parties who have councillors or MPs whose beliefs or actions are unacceptable or strange. Think LibDems who blow up Town Centres in Wales (18 year jail), Labour councillor in Whitby who has fathered an alien child (how strange can you get?), and the Tory MP from whom Mr Sylvester defected, and who recently held a Nazi-themed party in the Alps. No party is perfect, but of all of them UKIP has the best ethos. That's why I am in UKIP. I hope you will consider voting for UKIP. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: 1

1:49pm Mon 3 Feb 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

dontknowynot wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
Local issues now DKYN.

Are you going to give me your second vote, or do you prefer LibDems to UKIP for Mayor?
So PC what is reqd to stand for mayor, all thistalk of climate change is bringing out the Walter Mitty in me, now is there a deposit reqd or just nominations and seconders.
I could stand on a DKYN ticket then you guys would realize I was not ANNE, my understanding is that we are about to have a load of Romanians come over here. In preparation for this I have allready put it in my manifesto to hod town wide celebrations for National Great Union Day celebrating the Union of Transylvania with Romania, also for St Andrews day.
I am thinking of going further and building social housing on Cassiobery park for them, they can then come over and their children will have that new free school to go to excellant
Plus of course you guys will find out who I am, and of course all my little UKIP devotees are bound to v0te for me
I do think thou PB that you have a bit of nerve saying what is and is not a local issue, surly today of all days Climate change is a local issue, and going forward we will have to work with the river peeps and other Local authorities to manage the situation
I'll take that as a "yes" then.
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: Local issues now DKYN. Are you going to give me your second vote, or do you prefer LibDems to UKIP for Mayor?[/p][/quote]So PC what is reqd to stand for mayor, all thistalk of climate change is bringing out the Walter Mitty in me, now is there a deposit reqd or just nominations and seconders. I could stand on a DKYN ticket then you guys would realize I was not ANNE, my understanding is that we are about to have a load of Romanians come over here. In preparation for this I have allready put it in my manifesto to hod town wide celebrations for National Great Union Day celebrating the Union of Transylvania with Romania, also for St Andrews day. I am thinking of going further and building social housing on Cassiobery park for them, they can then come over and their children will have that new free school to go to excellant Plus of course you guys will find out who I am, and of course all my little UKIP devotees are bound to v0te for me I do think thou PB that you have a bit of nerve saying what is and is not a local issue, surly today of all days Climate change is a local issue, and going forward we will have to work with the river peeps and other Local authorities to manage the situation[/p][/quote]I'll take that as a "yes" then. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: -1

1:51pm Mon 3 Feb 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

JohnnyHornet wrote:
garston tony wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
garston tony wrote: I'm actually pretty sure Mr Cox is sincere in his beliefs about UKIP and how they will be a breath of fresh air in politics, but should he become Mayor I dont think it'll take long for those beliefs to come crashing down and whilst he may try to prevail UKIP will be shown to be like any other political party out there. Good luck to you however, I might just vote for you as pretty much anything is better than Dotty
Blow me down with a feather! Tony, you don't know how much that means to me to get your backing. I'm actually overwhelmed! Thank you.
Dont thank me, I think if you were to win no matter how sincere you are at wanting to be better than the rest you'll eventually get dragged down to their level.

Thats not an attack on you personally, just a realistic comment on politics in general and living with the reality instead of idealistic theory. UKIP is no different to any other party in many ways
"UKIP is no different to any other party in many ways", Please allude Tony as they haven't had a chance yet and it's totally wrong to suggest they are no different, from what I have seen they are in fact a breath of fresh air, very much needed in the stale corruptness of modern day politics, the good thing about UKIP at a local level is they are not whipped to a party line on issues, meaning they can truly work for the local electorate rather than be dictated to by Westminster, which ultimately should make a significant improvement in services delivered by the local authority.....And on another point raised here about Cllr David Sylvester's remarks they were made before he defected from the Tories, not big hubbub when he said them, but because he's UKIP the dishonest media took up their usual biased mantle, but if anyone took what he said with any seriousness, I would not only doubt Sylvester but the person who viewed it in such a way, All of the electorate at all levels in the UK need to seriously look at where the LibLabCon (AKA European National Party ) have / are leading this country, believe me we are not going to get many more chance to keep our independent sovereignty, so start in May Vote UKIP, Vote Phil Cox.
Thank you Johnny, your support is appreciated.
[quote][p][bold]JohnnyHornet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: I'm actually pretty sure Mr Cox is sincere in his beliefs about UKIP and how they will be a breath of fresh air in politics, but should he become Mayor I dont think it'll take long for those beliefs to come crashing down and whilst he may try to prevail UKIP will be shown to be like any other political party out there. Good luck to you however, I might just vote for you as pretty much anything is better than Dotty[/p][/quote]Blow me down with a feather! Tony, you don't know how much that means to me to get your backing. I'm actually overwhelmed! Thank you.[/p][/quote]Dont thank me, I think if you were to win no matter how sincere you are at wanting to be better than the rest you'll eventually get dragged down to their level. Thats not an attack on you personally, just a realistic comment on politics in general and living with the reality instead of idealistic theory. UKIP is no different to any other party in many ways[/p][/quote]"UKIP is no different to any other party in many ways", Please allude Tony as they haven't had a chance yet and it's totally wrong to suggest they are no different, from what I have seen they are in fact a breath of fresh air, very much needed in the stale corruptness of modern day politics, the good thing about UKIP at a local level is they are not whipped to a party line on issues, meaning they can truly work for the local electorate rather than be dictated to by Westminster, which ultimately should make a significant improvement in services delivered by the local authority.....And on another point raised here about Cllr David Sylvester's remarks they were made before he defected from the Tories, not big hubbub when he said them, but because he's UKIP the dishonest media took up their usual biased mantle, but if anyone took what he said with any seriousness, I would not only doubt Sylvester but the person who viewed it in such a way, All of the electorate at all levels in the UK need to seriously look at where the LibLabCon (AKA European National Party ) have / are leading this country, believe me we are not going to get many more chance to keep our independent sovereignty, so start in May Vote UKIP, Vote Phil Cox.[/p][/quote]Thank you Johnny, your support is appreciated. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: 0

1:52pm Mon 3 Feb 14

EU_OUT_NOW says...

dontknowynot says...

"I am so touched by your concern Brian you are a darling aren’t you" .........Ooooo Errrrrrrrrrrr Now a comment like that is a bit of a give away isn't it??? Think about it......
dontknowynot says... "I am so touched by your concern Brian you are a darling aren’t you" .........Ooooo Errrrrrrrrrrr Now a comment like that is a bit of a give away isn't it??? Think about it...... EU_OUT_NOW
  • Score: -1

2:10pm Mon 3 Feb 14

JohnnyHornet says...

Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
JohnnyHornet wrote:
garston tony wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
garston tony wrote: I'm actually pretty sure Mr Cox is sincere in his beliefs about UKIP and how they will be a breath of fresh air in politics, but should he become Mayor I dont think it'll take long for those beliefs to come crashing down and whilst he may try to prevail UKIP will be shown to be like any other political party out there. Good luck to you however, I might just vote for you as pretty much anything is better than Dotty
Blow me down with a feather! Tony, you don't know how much that means to me to get your backing. I'm actually overwhelmed! Thank you.
Dont thank me, I think if you were to win no matter how sincere you are at wanting to be better than the rest you'll eventually get dragged down to their level.

Thats not an attack on you personally, just a realistic comment on politics in general and living with the reality instead of idealistic theory. UKIP is no different to any other party in many ways
"UKIP is no different to any other party in many ways", Please allude Tony as they haven't had a chance yet and it's totally wrong to suggest they are no different, from what I have seen they are in fact a breath of fresh air, very much needed in the stale corruptness of modern day politics, the good thing about UKIP at a local level is they are not whipped to a party line on issues, meaning they can truly work for the local electorate rather than be dictated to by Westminster, which ultimately should make a significant improvement in services delivered by the local authority.....And on another point raised here about Cllr David Sylvester's remarks they were made before he defected from the Tories, not big hubbub when he said them, but because he's UKIP the dishonest media took up their usual biased mantle, but if anyone took what he said with any seriousness, I would not only doubt Sylvester but the person who viewed it in such a way, All of the electorate at all levels in the UK need to seriously look at where the LibLabCon (AKA European National Party ) have / are leading this country, believe me we are not going to get many more chance to keep our independent sovereignty, so start in May Vote UKIP, Vote Phil Cox.
Thank you Johnny, your support is appreciated.
Phil, Just seen this UKIP MEP's Tour Hemel Hempstead 09/04/2014 apparently you can book free tickets on www.ukiphemelhempste
ad.org.uk
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JohnnyHornet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: I'm actually pretty sure Mr Cox is sincere in his beliefs about UKIP and how they will be a breath of fresh air in politics, but should he become Mayor I dont think it'll take long for those beliefs to come crashing down and whilst he may try to prevail UKIP will be shown to be like any other political party out there. Good luck to you however, I might just vote for you as pretty much anything is better than Dotty[/p][/quote]Blow me down with a feather! Tony, you don't know how much that means to me to get your backing. I'm actually overwhelmed! Thank you.[/p][/quote]Dont thank me, I think if you were to win no matter how sincere you are at wanting to be better than the rest you'll eventually get dragged down to their level. Thats not an attack on you personally, just a realistic comment on politics in general and living with the reality instead of idealistic theory. UKIP is no different to any other party in many ways[/p][/quote]"UKIP is no different to any other party in many ways", Please allude Tony as they haven't had a chance yet and it's totally wrong to suggest they are no different, from what I have seen they are in fact a breath of fresh air, very much needed in the stale corruptness of modern day politics, the good thing about UKIP at a local level is they are not whipped to a party line on issues, meaning they can truly work for the local electorate rather than be dictated to by Westminster, which ultimately should make a significant improvement in services delivered by the local authority.....And on another point raised here about Cllr David Sylvester's remarks they were made before he defected from the Tories, not big hubbub when he said them, but because he's UKIP the dishonest media took up their usual biased mantle, but if anyone took what he said with any seriousness, I would not only doubt Sylvester but the person who viewed it in such a way, All of the electorate at all levels in the UK need to seriously look at where the LibLabCon (AKA European National Party ) have / are leading this country, believe me we are not going to get many more chance to keep our independent sovereignty, so start in May Vote UKIP, Vote Phil Cox.[/p][/quote]Thank you Johnny, your support is appreciated.[/p][/quote]Phil, Just seen this UKIP MEP's Tour Hemel Hempstead 09/04/2014 apparently you can book free tickets on www.ukiphemelhempste ad.org.uk JohnnyHornet
  • Score: 1

2:14pm Mon 3 Feb 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

JohnnyHornet wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
JohnnyHornet wrote:
garston tony wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
garston tony wrote: I'm actually pretty sure Mr Cox is sincere in his beliefs about UKIP and how they will be a breath of fresh air in politics, but should he become Mayor I dont think it'll take long for those beliefs to come crashing down and whilst he may try to prevail UKIP will be shown to be like any other political party out there. Good luck to you however, I might just vote for you as pretty much anything is better than Dotty
Blow me down with a feather! Tony, you don't know how much that means to me to get your backing. I'm actually overwhelmed! Thank you.
Dont thank me, I think if you were to win no matter how sincere you are at wanting to be better than the rest you'll eventually get dragged down to their level.

Thats not an attack on you personally, just a realistic comment on politics in general and living with the reality instead of idealistic theory. UKIP is no different to any other party in many ways
"UKIP is no different to any other party in many ways", Please allude Tony as they haven't had a chance yet and it's totally wrong to suggest they are no different, from what I have seen they are in fact a breath of fresh air, very much needed in the stale corruptness of modern day politics, the good thing about UKIP at a local level is they are not whipped to a party line on issues, meaning they can truly work for the local electorate rather than be dictated to by Westminster, which ultimately should make a significant improvement in services delivered by the local authority.....And on another point raised here about Cllr David Sylvester's remarks they were made before he defected from the Tories, not big hubbub when he said them, but because he's UKIP the dishonest media took up their usual biased mantle, but if anyone took what he said with any seriousness, I would not only doubt Sylvester but the person who viewed it in such a way, All of the electorate at all levels in the UK need to seriously look at where the LibLabCon (AKA European National Party ) have / are leading this country, believe me we are not going to get many more chance to keep our independent sovereignty, so start in May Vote UKIP, Vote Phil Cox.
Thank you Johnny, your support is appreciated.
Phil, Just seen this UKIP MEP's Tour Hemel Hempstead 09/04/2014 apparently you can book free tickets on www.ukiphemelhempste

ad.org.uk
Thanks Johnny.
[quote][p][bold]JohnnyHornet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JohnnyHornet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: I'm actually pretty sure Mr Cox is sincere in his beliefs about UKIP and how they will be a breath of fresh air in politics, but should he become Mayor I dont think it'll take long for those beliefs to come crashing down and whilst he may try to prevail UKIP will be shown to be like any other political party out there. Good luck to you however, I might just vote for you as pretty much anything is better than Dotty[/p][/quote]Blow me down with a feather! Tony, you don't know how much that means to me to get your backing. I'm actually overwhelmed! Thank you.[/p][/quote]Dont thank me, I think if you were to win no matter how sincere you are at wanting to be better than the rest you'll eventually get dragged down to their level. Thats not an attack on you personally, just a realistic comment on politics in general and living with the reality instead of idealistic theory. UKIP is no different to any other party in many ways[/p][/quote]"UKIP is no different to any other party in many ways", Please allude Tony as they haven't had a chance yet and it's totally wrong to suggest they are no different, from what I have seen they are in fact a breath of fresh air, very much needed in the stale corruptness of modern day politics, the good thing about UKIP at a local level is they are not whipped to a party line on issues, meaning they can truly work for the local electorate rather than be dictated to by Westminster, which ultimately should make a significant improvement in services delivered by the local authority.....And on another point raised here about Cllr David Sylvester's remarks they were made before he defected from the Tories, not big hubbub when he said them, but because he's UKIP the dishonest media took up their usual biased mantle, but if anyone took what he said with any seriousness, I would not only doubt Sylvester but the person who viewed it in such a way, All of the electorate at all levels in the UK need to seriously look at where the LibLabCon (AKA European National Party ) have / are leading this country, believe me we are not going to get many more chance to keep our independent sovereignty, so start in May Vote UKIP, Vote Phil Cox.[/p][/quote]Thank you Johnny, your support is appreciated.[/p][/quote]Phil, Just seen this UKIP MEP's Tour Hemel Hempstead 09/04/2014 apparently you can book free tickets on www.ukiphemelhempste ad.org.uk[/p][/quote]Thanks Johnny. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: 1

2:19pm Mon 3 Feb 14

Harry's Bar says...

Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
Harry's Bar wrote:
EU_OUT_NOW wrote:
Harry's Bar wrote:
As a mayoral candidate is it appropriate to be posting political views on a non political forum?
Did you miss the headline???

"Vice chairman of UKIP Watford, Phil Cox, unveiled as party's mayoral candidate"

Point made I think.
I meant in general really, not in relation to this article.
So long as I do not hide my identity like some councillors from other parties it should be a positive thing.

It seems the Mayors husband pens under a number of aliases, male and female. There's something wrong in that I would argue.

If you post and you are an elected official, then you should have the courage to post under your own name.

I can only assume these elected councillors would be ashamed to post under their real names the stuff they post under their assumed names. Having read their posts, I can fully understand that.

The solution is this. Stop posting, post more sensibly and honestly or post and be dammned, for they surely will be.
Most people post using a pseudonym. I don't think there's anything wrong in that, and the Mayor's husband could be having an identity crisis.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harry's Bar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]EU_OUT_NOW[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harry's Bar[/bold] wrote: As a mayoral candidate is it appropriate to be posting political views on a non political forum?[/p][/quote]Did you miss the headline??? "Vice chairman of UKIP Watford, Phil Cox, unveiled as party's mayoral candidate" Point made I think.[/p][/quote]I meant in general really, not in relation to this article.[/p][/quote]So long as I do not hide my identity like some councillors from other parties it should be a positive thing. It seems the Mayors husband pens under a number of aliases, male and female. There's something wrong in that I would argue. If you post and you are an elected official, then you should have the courage to post under your own name. I can only assume these elected councillors would be ashamed to post under their real names the stuff they post under their assumed names. Having read their posts, I can fully understand that. The solution is this. Stop posting, post more sensibly and honestly or post and be dammned, for they surely will be.[/p][/quote]Most people post using a pseudonym. I don't think there's anything wrong in that, and the Mayor's husband could be having an identity crisis. Harry's Bar
  • Score: 2

2:28pm Mon 3 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

Harry's Bar wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
Harry's Bar wrote:
EU_OUT_NOW wrote:
Harry's Bar wrote:
As a mayoral candidate is it appropriate to be posting political views on a non political forum?
Did you miss the headline???

"Vice chairman of UKIP Watford, Phil Cox, unveiled as party's mayoral candidate"

Point made I think.
I meant in general really, not in relation to this article.
So long as I do not hide my identity like some councillors from other parties it should be a positive thing.

It seems the Mayors husband pens under a number of aliases, male and female. There's something wrong in that I would argue.

If you post and you are an elected official, then you should have the courage to post under your own name.

I can only assume these elected councillors would be ashamed to post under their real names the stuff they post under their assumed names. Having read their posts, I can fully understand that.

The solution is this. Stop posting, post more sensibly and honestly or post and be dammned, for they surely will be.
Most people post using a pseudonym. I don't think there's anything wrong in that, and the Mayor's husband could be having an identity crisis.
your Derek Scudder aren't you now own up to it, come on I have rumbled you here
[quote][p][bold]Harry's Bar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harry's Bar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]EU_OUT_NOW[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harry's Bar[/bold] wrote: As a mayoral candidate is it appropriate to be posting political views on a non political forum?[/p][/quote]Did you miss the headline??? "Vice chairman of UKIP Watford, Phil Cox, unveiled as party's mayoral candidate" Point made I think.[/p][/quote]I meant in general really, not in relation to this article.[/p][/quote]So long as I do not hide my identity like some councillors from other parties it should be a positive thing. It seems the Mayors husband pens under a number of aliases, male and female. There's something wrong in that I would argue. If you post and you are an elected official, then you should have the courage to post under your own name. I can only assume these elected councillors would be ashamed to post under their real names the stuff they post under their assumed names. Having read their posts, I can fully understand that. The solution is this. Stop posting, post more sensibly and honestly or post and be dammned, for they surely will be.[/p][/quote]Most people post using a pseudonym. I don't think there's anything wrong in that, and the Mayor's husband could be having an identity crisis.[/p][/quote]your Derek Scudder aren't you now own up to it, come on I have rumbled you here dontknowynot
  • Score: -1

2:30pm Mon 3 Feb 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

Harry's Bar wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
Harry's Bar wrote:
EU_OUT_NOW wrote:
Harry's Bar wrote:
As a mayoral candidate is it appropriate to be posting political views on a non political forum?
Did you miss the headline???

"Vice chairman of UKIP Watford, Phil Cox, unveiled as party's mayoral candidate"

Point made I think.
I meant in general really, not in relation to this article.
So long as I do not hide my identity like some councillors from other parties it should be a positive thing.

It seems the Mayors husband pens under a number of aliases, male and female. There's something wrong in that I would argue.

If you post and you are an elected official, then you should have the courage to post under your own name.

I can only assume these elected councillors would be ashamed to post under their real names the stuff they post under their assumed names. Having read their posts, I can fully understand that.

The solution is this. Stop posting, post more sensibly and honestly or post and be dammned, for they surely will be.
Most people post using a pseudonym. I don't think there's anything wrong in that, and the Mayor's husband could be having an identity crisis.
Good comment.

I agree with you on the whole, but I do believe elected politicians should have the courage of their convictions and post under their real name.
[quote][p][bold]Harry's Bar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harry's Bar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]EU_OUT_NOW[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harry's Bar[/bold] wrote: As a mayoral candidate is it appropriate to be posting political views on a non political forum?[/p][/quote]Did you miss the headline??? "Vice chairman of UKIP Watford, Phil Cox, unveiled as party's mayoral candidate" Point made I think.[/p][/quote]I meant in general really, not in relation to this article.[/p][/quote]So long as I do not hide my identity like some councillors from other parties it should be a positive thing. It seems the Mayors husband pens under a number of aliases, male and female. There's something wrong in that I would argue. If you post and you are an elected official, then you should have the courage to post under your own name. I can only assume these elected councillors would be ashamed to post under their real names the stuff they post under their assumed names. Having read their posts, I can fully understand that. The solution is this. Stop posting, post more sensibly and honestly or post and be dammned, for they surely will be.[/p][/quote]Most people post using a pseudonym. I don't think there's anything wrong in that, and the Mayor's husband could be having an identity crisis.[/p][/quote]Good comment. I agree with you on the whole, but I do believe elected politicians should have the courage of their convictions and post under their real name. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: 1

2:49pm Mon 3 Feb 14

EU_OUT_NOW says...

dontknowynot says...

"I am so touched by your concern Brian you are a darling aren’t you" .........Ooooo Errrrrrrrrrrr Now a comment like that is a bit of a give away isn't it??? Think about it...... Come on "dontknowynot" Darling, where are you??
dontknowynot says... "I am so touched by your concern Brian you are a darling aren’t you" .........Ooooo Errrrrrrrrrrr Now a comment like that is a bit of a give away isn't it??? Think about it...... Come on "dontknowynot" Darling, where are you?? EU_OUT_NOW
  • Score: -2

2:52pm Mon 3 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

EU_OUT_NOW wrote:
dontknowynot says...

"I am so touched by your concern Brian you are a darling aren’t you" .........Ooooo Errrrrrrrrrrr Now a comment like that is a bit of a give away isn't it??? Think about it......
hello possums,
My mother used to say, you cant trust them Romanians, turn your back on them for a second and they will all come over here in a jiffy
[quote][p][bold]EU_OUT_NOW[/bold] wrote: dontknowynot says... "I am so touched by your concern Brian you are a darling aren’t you" .........Ooooo Errrrrrrrrrrr Now a comment like that is a bit of a give away isn't it??? Think about it......[/p][/quote]hello possums, My mother used to say, you cant trust them Romanians, turn your back on them for a second and they will all come over here in a jiffy dontknowynot
  • Score: -2

3:35pm Mon 3 Feb 14

CaptainPC says...

Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
Harry's Bar wrote:
As a mayoral candidate is it appropriate to be posting political views on a non political forum?
Can you suggest why it would not be appropriate?

The WO is about local issues and local issues are often affected by or controlled by politicians. I would have thought it was the ideal place.

Many elected councilors post their opinions onto the WO website, often apparently under false names. I am posting under my real name.

I think the positive is that it will tell people where I stand on issues when they come to vote in May.

I want to be a transparent Mayor. I want people to know where they stand with myself and UKIP locally. What better way than the pages of the WO?

We don't have the resources of the LibDems and Tories to drop a leaflet through every door showing us gazing into potholes and trying to look relevant. I suspect many people will be grateful for that one small mercy!
To be fair, I don't know much about Dorothy Thornhill. It may well be that she is an idiot, it wouldn't surprise me if she was. However I think Phil would be well served by the adage "It's better to be quiet and be thought and idiot than to open your mouth and prove it."

Just saying.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harry's Bar[/bold] wrote: As a mayoral candidate is it appropriate to be posting political views on a non political forum?[/p][/quote]Can you suggest why it would not be appropriate? The WO is about local issues and local issues are often affected by or controlled by politicians. I would have thought it was the ideal place. Many elected councilors post their opinions onto the WO website, often apparently under false names. I am posting under my real name. I think the positive is that it will tell people where I stand on issues when they come to vote in May. I want to be a transparent Mayor. I want people to know where they stand with myself and UKIP locally. What better way than the pages of the WO? We don't have the resources of the LibDems and Tories to drop a leaflet through every door showing us gazing into potholes and trying to look relevant. I suspect many people will be grateful for that one small mercy![/p][/quote]To be fair, I don't know much about Dorothy Thornhill. It may well be that she is an idiot, it wouldn't surprise me if she was. However I think Phil would be well served by the adage "It's better to be quiet and be thought and idiot than to open your mouth and prove it." Just saying. CaptainPC
  • Score: -3

3:41pm Mon 3 Feb 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

dontknowynot wrote:
I am so touched by your concern Brian you are a darling aren’t you
PC & DP well it is so kind of you to illuminate the good people of Watford with your party’s view on climate change, a mixture of bovine excrement and denial, but never mind it is now clear for the people of Watford to read, oh hang on its only you UKIPers and me on here.
Needless to say I disagree time will tell and I am certain it will tell that you are wrong.
For example DP you cite a micro change from one to three month’s observation to counter a trend of fifty years, you are simply wrong and wrong headed on this it is reminiscent of the arguments out forward about Acid Rain what was it “you have always had acid rain because of volcanoes”.
PC your attempt to reduce to the absurd whilst amusing will not convince anybody, climate change is a reality and your party’s Denial stance is Walter Mittyesc in the extreme.
So I wonder what has happened to UKIP common sense, nowt it never was there
Vote UKIP you know it makes nonsense
I said climate change is real, no-one is denying it, in fact it's been happening for millions of years. Ask any scientist. Of that we are 100% sure.

Everything else I said was also real and true.

Do you know the difference between causation and correlation?

What is your knowledge level of statistics?

If you can't read statistics and understand what they mean, it's possible you can be taken in by them. That is true for the majority of the population.

That's why salesmen, politicians and scientists use statistics.

That's why everyone else needs to be cautious.
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: I am so touched by your concern Brian you are a darling aren’t you PC & DP well it is so kind of you to illuminate the good people of Watford with your party’s view on climate change, a mixture of bovine excrement and denial, but never mind it is now clear for the people of Watford to read, oh hang on its only you UKIPers and me on here. Needless to say I disagree time will tell and I am certain it will tell that you are wrong. For example DP you cite a micro change from one to three month’s observation to counter a trend of fifty years, you are simply wrong and wrong headed on this it is reminiscent of the arguments out forward about Acid Rain what was it “you have always had acid rain because of volcanoes”. PC your attempt to reduce to the absurd whilst amusing will not convince anybody, climate change is a reality and your party’s Denial stance is Walter Mittyesc in the extreme. So I wonder what has happened to UKIP common sense, nowt it never was there Vote UKIP you know it makes nonsense[/p][/quote]I said climate change is real, no-one is denying it, in fact it's been happening for millions of years. Ask any scientist. Of that we are 100% sure. Everything else I said was also real and true. Do you know the difference between causation and correlation? What is your knowledge level of statistics? If you can't read statistics and understand what they mean, it's possible you can be taken in by them. That is true for the majority of the population. That's why salesmen, politicians and scientists use statistics. That's why everyone else needs to be cautious. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: -2

3:41pm Mon 3 Feb 14

EU_OUT_NOW says...

dontknowynot wrote:
EU_OUT_NOW wrote:
dontknowynot says...

"I am so touched by your concern Brian you are a darling aren’t you" .........Ooooo Errrrrrrrrrrr Now a comment like that is a bit of a give away isn't it??? Think about it......
hello possums,
My mother used to say, you cant trust them Romanians, turn your back on them for a second and they will all come over here in a jiffy
Ahhhhh there you are. Well hello.... Glad to see you're back, I've missed you....):):):):))
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]EU_OUT_NOW[/bold] wrote: dontknowynot says... "I am so touched by your concern Brian you are a darling aren’t you" .........Ooooo Errrrrrrrrrrr Now a comment like that is a bit of a give away isn't it??? Think about it......[/p][/quote]hello possums, My mother used to say, you cant trust them Romanians, turn your back on them for a second and they will all come over here in a jiffy[/p][/quote]Ahhhhh there you are. Well hello.... Glad to see you're back, I've missed you....):):):):)) EU_OUT_NOW
  • Score: -2

3:46pm Mon 3 Feb 14

EU_OUT_NOW says...

CaptainPC says...

To be fair, I don't know much about Dorothy Thornhill. It may well be that she is an idiot, it wouldn't surprise me if she was. However I think Phil would be well served by the adage "It's better to be quiet and be thought and idiot than to open your mouth and prove it."

Just saying..............
... OUCH, What a b*tch.... not like you to make comments like this, having a bad day??
CaptainPC says... To be fair, I don't know much about Dorothy Thornhill. It may well be that she is an idiot, it wouldn't surprise me if she was. However I think Phil would be well served by the adage "It's better to be quiet and be thought and idiot than to open your mouth and prove it." Just saying.............. ... OUCH, What a b*tch.... not like you to make comments like this, having a bad day?? EU_OUT_NOW
  • Score: -2

4:25pm Mon 3 Feb 14

D_Penn says...

@dontknowynot

I think you have lost the intellectual argument on climate change when, as above, you have declared arguments that are counter to your own as 'bovine excrement'. At that point there is no further point debating with you on the subject as you have nothing worthwhile to offer except veiled crudity.
@dontknowynot I think you have lost the intellectual argument on climate change when, as above, you have declared arguments that are counter to your own as 'bovine excrement'. At that point there is no further point debating with you on the subject as you have nothing worthwhile to offer except veiled crudity. D_Penn
  • Score: -2

4:33pm Mon 3 Feb 14

BrianUKIP says...

D_Penn wrote:
@dontknowynot

I think you have lost the intellectual argument on climate change when, as above, you have declared arguments that are counter to your own as 'bovine excrement'. At that point there is no further point debating with you on the subject as you have nothing worthwhile to offer except veiled crudity.
D_Penn you say "there is no further point debating with you on the subject"

Could I be as bold as to ask what subject has been worthwhile debating with dontknowynot ?
[quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: @dontknowynot I think you have lost the intellectual argument on climate change when, as above, you have declared arguments that are counter to your own as 'bovine excrement'. At that point there is no further point debating with you on the subject as you have nothing worthwhile to offer except veiled crudity.[/p][/quote]D_Penn you say "there is no further point debating with you on the subject" Could I be as bold as to ask what subject has been worthwhile debating with dontknowynot ? BrianUKIP
  • Score: 0

4:50pm Mon 3 Feb 14

D_Penn says...

BrianUKIP wrote:
D_Penn wrote: @dontknowynot I think you have lost the intellectual argument on climate change when, as above, you have declared arguments that are counter to your own as 'bovine excrement'. At that point there is no further point debating with you on the subject as you have nothing worthwhile to offer except veiled crudity.
D_Penn you say "there is no further point debating with you on the subject" Could I be as bold as to ask what subject has been worthwhile debating with dontknowynot ?
Good point.
[quote][p][bold]BrianUKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: @dontknowynot I think you have lost the intellectual argument on climate change when, as above, you have declared arguments that are counter to your own as 'bovine excrement'. At that point there is no further point debating with you on the subject as you have nothing worthwhile to offer except veiled crudity.[/p][/quote]D_Penn you say "there is no further point debating with you on the subject" Could I be as bold as to ask what subject has been worthwhile debating with dontknowynot ?[/p][/quote]Good point. D_Penn
  • Score: 0

5:03pm Mon 3 Feb 14

LSC says...

"I agree with you on the whole, but I do believe elected politicians should have the courage of their convictions and post under their real name."

Totally agreed. I don't post under my real name because my personal opinions have nothing to do with my work, and I don't want them connected. The personal opinions of politicians have everything to do with their work; that's the job.
As I have said before, I might not wholly agree with Phil and his party, but better him who I can quiz directly on here than 'Photo op' Ms Thornhill or that grinning Jackanapes of a Police Commissioner.
"I agree with you on the whole, but I do believe elected politicians should have the courage of their convictions and post under their real name." Totally agreed. I don't post under my real name because my personal opinions have nothing to do with my work, and I don't want them connected. The personal opinions of politicians have everything to do with their work; that's the job. As I have said before, I might not wholly agree with Phil and his party, but better him who I can quiz directly on here than 'Photo op' Ms Thornhill or that grinning Jackanapes of a Police Commissioner. LSC
  • Score: 3

5:14pm Mon 3 Feb 14

D_Penn says...

Half the problem with so many of today's politicians that they are so unapproachable and detached from the hoi polloi.

Online, all us involved in politics should use our own name so that when people meet you they can associate you with the views you make online and challenge them if they wish. If you believe in what you say then you shouldn't be frightened to debate openly with others.

There is another point as well. If you don't post under your own name there have been examples where somebody else registers as you, pretends to be you, and then posts rubbish in order to damage you. If you are already posting under your own name it makes that dirty trick very unlikely to work.
Half the problem with so many of today's politicians that they are so unapproachable and detached from the hoi polloi. Online, all us involved in politics should use our own name so that when people meet you they can associate you with the views you make online and challenge them if they wish. If you believe in what you say then you shouldn't be frightened to debate openly with others. There is another point as well. If you don't post under your own name there have been examples where somebody else registers as you, pretends to be you, and then posts rubbish in order to damage you. If you are already posting under your own name it makes that dirty trick very unlikely to work. D_Penn
  • Score: -1

6:20pm Mon 3 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

D_Penn wrote:
@dontknowynot

There is a 100% chance that climate change is natural. That is because it has always changed, long beore mankind even walked the earth.

I have been in science long enough to know that scientists are easily swayed by evidence and then completely change their mind when alternative evidence comes around. For years everyone 'knew' the universe was static and unchanging. Then everyone was astounded when it was discovered it was expanding. For most of my life, every astronomer was debating whether the universe would expand forever, stop expanding or eventually start to collapse on itself. Then recently, out of the blue, it was discovered that the rate of expansion of the universe was actually accelerating! If anyone had put forward that scenario ten years ago they would have been treated as totally mad.

My point is science is littered with examples where the arrogant majority believed one thing, convinced all the public they were right and then ended up with egg all over their face when they had to admit they were absolutely wrong.

The fact that ALL the climate models have failed to predict why the earth has not warmed for the last thirteen years shows that there is a deep flaw somewhere. The chief effect of that failure to date is that doom merchants like you have been forced to shiftily change the marketing speak and talk about 'climate change' instead of 'global warming' in an attempt to keep the green gravy train flowing.

The other effect is that many clmate scientists are running around like headless chickens trying to understand what on earth is going on. They seem unable to accept that they were wrong. They are hugely embarrassed that having predicted imminent disaster and an artic free of ice and polar bear extinction that, ahem, it doesn't seem to be happening. Now, in desperation, they are trying to look, not for global warming, but any climate change in order to justify the billions upon billions of pounds wasted on going green on their say so. Of course, they will always find climate change because nature assures that it always has and always will. So now all they have to do is convince themselves and everyone else that any change they discover taking place has to be man's fault and then it's everyone back on the green gravy train. David Cameron has already jumped on that bandwagon. When asked if he thought that this winter's floods were caused by climate change he answered, 'Yes, I think it probably is.'. Ridiculous.

To be clear, I do not rule out the possibility that mankind may be having an effect and even that it may be significant. My annoyance is that the jury is still out and much research is needed and proper unequivocal evidence collected. Once the job is done properly, it may even turn out that the earth is cooling naturally which is more than countering man's pathetic input. That is the sort of counter-intuitive punch that nature can often hit the arrogant scientist with, so it's important that all the money-making posturing stops and we go back to doing proper science in an unbiased and calm way until we get proper models making good predictions.

It is clear that until we know what is really going on we should not be shooting grotesquely expensive arrows in the dark on green policies. That piece of common sense is totally lost on politicians, particulary those in the EU.

Finally, I note that you have attacked virtually all methods from which Britain can supply its energy needs. So please tell me how you intend to keep the lights burning across the UK. Oh, sorry, I forgot. Labour dithered and never did come up with a viable plan did they?
fyi THIS is pure BS from the opening statement about "Climate change being natural " which is and was used to say both some is and imply that climate change is not therefore mostly man made" utter BS
thro the bizzare assertion that some scientific assertions have been proved wrong implying that surly they must be wrong this time,
To the fact that someone you clearly dislike has said something in support of the cause of recent flooding being linked to climate change. Again an exercise in BS.
Now having addressed all the arguments on this, and quite frankly having every point I have raised on any issue totally stonewalled by the UKIP brigade> I am utterly justified in saying yes this is BS.
As a n indication of the type of debate that UKIPers produce you need only look at the issue of ERic Pickles, I am sorry if I offend you by calling your clear BS arguments out as such but that is what they are, you won't die from me telling you so get over it.
[quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: @dontknowynot There is a 100% chance that climate change is natural. That is because it has always changed, long beore mankind even walked the earth. I have been in science long enough to know that scientists are easily swayed by evidence and then completely change their mind when alternative evidence comes around. For years everyone 'knew' the universe was static and unchanging. Then everyone was astounded when it was discovered it was expanding. For most of my life, every astronomer was debating whether the universe would expand forever, stop expanding or eventually start to collapse on itself. Then recently, out of the blue, it was discovered that the rate of expansion of the universe was actually accelerating! If anyone had put forward that scenario ten years ago they would have been treated as totally mad. My point is science is littered with examples where the arrogant majority believed one thing, convinced all the public they were right and then ended up with egg all over their face when they had to admit they were absolutely wrong. The fact that ALL the climate models have failed to predict why the earth has not warmed for the last thirteen years shows that there is a deep flaw somewhere. The chief effect of that failure to date is that doom merchants like you have been forced to shiftily change the marketing speak and talk about 'climate change' instead of 'global warming' in an attempt to keep the green gravy train flowing. The other effect is that many clmate scientists are running around like headless chickens trying to understand what on earth is going on. They seem unable to accept that they were wrong. They are hugely embarrassed that having predicted imminent disaster and an artic free of ice and polar bear extinction that, ahem, it doesn't seem to be happening. Now, in desperation, they are trying to look, not for global warming, but any climate change in order to justify the billions upon billions of pounds wasted on going green on their say so. Of course, they will always find climate change because nature assures that it always has and always will. So now all they have to do is convince themselves and everyone else that any change they discover taking place has to be man's fault and then it's everyone back on the green gravy train. David Cameron has already jumped on that bandwagon. When asked if he thought that this winter's floods were caused by climate change he answered, 'Yes, I think it probably is.'. Ridiculous. To be clear, I do not rule out the possibility that mankind may be having an effect and even that it may be significant. My annoyance is that the jury is still out and much research is needed and proper unequivocal evidence collected. Once the job is done properly, it may even turn out that the earth is cooling naturally which is more than countering man's pathetic input. That is the sort of counter-intuitive punch that nature can often hit the arrogant scientist with, so it's important that all the money-making posturing stops and we go back to doing proper science in an unbiased and calm way until we get proper models making good predictions. It is clear that until we know what is really going on we should not be shooting grotesquely expensive arrows in the dark on green policies. That piece of common sense is totally lost on politicians, particulary those in the EU. Finally, I note that you have attacked virtually all methods from which Britain can supply its energy needs. So please tell me how you intend to keep the lights burning across the UK. Oh, sorry, I forgot. Labour dithered and never did come up with a viable plan did they?[/p][/quote]fyi THIS is pure BS from the opening statement about "Climate change being natural " which is and was used to say both some is and imply that climate change is not therefore mostly man made" utter BS thro the bizzare assertion that some scientific assertions have been proved wrong implying that surly they must be wrong this time, To the fact that someone you clearly dislike has said something in support of the cause of recent flooding being linked to climate change. Again an exercise in BS. Now having addressed all the arguments on this, and quite frankly having every point I have raised on any issue totally stonewalled by the UKIP brigade> I am utterly justified in saying yes this is BS. As a n indication of the type of debate that UKIPers produce you need only look at the issue of ERic Pickles, I am sorry if I offend you by calling your clear BS arguments out as such but that is what they are, you won't die from me telling you so get over it. dontknowynot
  • Score: 1

6:33pm Mon 3 Feb 14

BrianUKIP says...

As a n indication of the type of debate that UKIPers produce you need only look at the issue of ERic Pickles, I am sorry if I offend you by calling your clear BS arguments out as such but that is what they are, you won't die from me telling you so get over it.

I thought the Labour party wanted to build loads of houses? If the only way 600 houses can be built is by building over an allotment I would have thought the likes of Ed Balls would be all for it.
As a n indication of the type of debate that UKIPers produce you need only look at the issue of ERic Pickles, I am sorry if I offend you by calling your clear BS arguments out as such but that is what they are, you won't die from me telling you so get over it. I thought the Labour party wanted to build loads of houses? If the only way 600 houses can be built is by building over an allotment I would have thought the likes of Ed Balls would be all for it. BrianUKIP
  • Score: 0

6:52pm Mon 3 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

BrianUKIP wrote:
As a n indication of the type of debate that UKIPers produce you need only look at the issue of ERic Pickles, I am sorry if I offend you by calling your clear BS arguments out as such but that is what they are, you won't die from me telling you so get over it.

I thought the Labour party wanted to build loads of houses? If the only way 600 houses can be built is by building over an allotment I would have thought the likes of Ed Balls would be all for it.
what utter nonsense there are millions of acres of land in the UK that cold be built on again an utter BS statement
BTW why is he not your HERO I mean you should demand a public holiday be made of his birthday (25th feb) after all it was his five tests that kept us out of the Euro, why are you not putting statues up in his honor???
[quote][p][bold]BrianUKIP[/bold] wrote: As a n indication of the type of debate that UKIPers produce you need only look at the issue of ERic Pickles, I am sorry if I offend you by calling your clear BS arguments out as such but that is what they are, you won't die from me telling you so get over it. I thought the Labour party wanted to build loads of houses? If the only way 600 houses can be built is by building over an allotment I would have thought the likes of Ed Balls would be all for it.[/p][/quote]what utter nonsense there are millions of acres of land in the UK that cold be built on again an utter BS statement BTW why is he not your HERO I mean you should demand a public holiday be made of his birthday (25th feb) after all it was his five tests that kept us out of the Euro, why are you not putting statues up in his honor??? dontknowynot
  • Score: 1

6:58pm Mon 3 Feb 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

BrianUKIP wrote:
As a n indication of the type of debate that UKIPers produce you need only look at the issue of ERic Pickles, I am sorry if I offend you by calling your clear BS arguments out as such but that is what they are, you won't die from me telling you so get over it.

I thought the Labour party wanted to build loads of houses? If the only way 600 houses can be built is by building over an allotment I would have thought the likes of Ed Balls would be all for it.
Interesting comment Brian and one that identifies one of the fundamental differences between UKIP and the other three main parties.

I know from speaking to people in the local party that we are against the loss of the allotments out of principle. It's simply wrong, no matter who is doing it. An alternative could so easily be found if anyone cared to look.

Labour on the other hand are responding to local concern but at the end of the day if Labour were in power in Westminster and decided to lose the allotments to housing we all know the local party would roll over and act like the LibDems did in TRDC over losing green belt fields, saying "there's nothing can be done about it, we disagree but what can we do? Never mind".

I know that a UKIP party locally, if it believed something was wrong, would stand up for the people in question, even against a government of our own party.

That's because UKIP locally act as independents, working for the people first, party a far off second.

Labour, Cons, LibDems, all act like a bit-part actor in someone else's movie. They do what they are told and take pride in party discipline over representing the people who actually voted them in to power and who pay their wages.

That's one of the reasons UKIP is doing so well, we just are not like that. Independent-minded people are welcome in UKIP.

Vote UKIP, it's the only party that makes any sense.
[quote][p][bold]BrianUKIP[/bold] wrote: As a n indication of the type of debate that UKIPers produce you need only look at the issue of ERic Pickles, I am sorry if I offend you by calling your clear BS arguments out as such but that is what they are, you won't die from me telling you so get over it. I thought the Labour party wanted to build loads of houses? If the only way 600 houses can be built is by building over an allotment I would have thought the likes of Ed Balls would be all for it.[/p][/quote]Interesting comment Brian and one that identifies one of the fundamental differences between UKIP and the other three main parties. I know from speaking to people in the local party that we are against the loss of the allotments out of principle. It's simply wrong, no matter who is doing it. An alternative could so easily be found if anyone cared to look. Labour on the other hand are responding to local concern but at the end of the day if Labour were in power in Westminster and decided to lose the allotments to housing we all know the local party would roll over and act like the LibDems did in TRDC over losing green belt fields, saying "there's nothing can be done about it, we disagree but what can we do? Never mind". I know that a UKIP party locally, if it believed something was wrong, would stand up for the people in question, even against a government of our own party. That's because UKIP locally act as independents, working for the people first, party a far off second. Labour, Cons, LibDems, all act like a bit-part actor in someone else's movie. They do what they are told and take pride in party discipline over representing the people who actually voted them in to power and who pay their wages. That's one of the reasons UKIP is doing so well, we just are not like that. Independent-minded people are welcome in UKIP. Vote UKIP, it's the only party that makes any sense. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: 0

7:03pm Mon 3 Feb 14

BrianUKIP says...

dontknowynot wrote:
BrianUKIP wrote:
As a n indication of the type of debate that UKIPers produce you need only look at the issue of ERic Pickles, I am sorry if I offend you by calling your clear BS arguments out as such but that is what they are, you won't die from me telling you so get over it.

I thought the Labour party wanted to build loads of houses? If the only way 600 houses can be built is by building over an allotment I would have thought the likes of Ed Balls would be all for it.
what utter nonsense there are millions of acres of land in the UK that cold be built on again an utter BS statement
BTW why is he not your HERO I mean you should demand a public holiday be made of his birthday (25th feb) after all it was his five tests that kept us out of the Euro, why are you not putting statues up in his honor???
My mate tells me your colleagues have a standing joke that before they meet you they guess how many lemons you have been sucking on during the day. Apparently a bad day is more than 3 .

Today It must be a 5?
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BrianUKIP[/bold] wrote: As a n indication of the type of debate that UKIPers produce you need only look at the issue of ERic Pickles, I am sorry if I offend you by calling your clear BS arguments out as such but that is what they are, you won't die from me telling you so get over it. I thought the Labour party wanted to build loads of houses? If the only way 600 houses can be built is by building over an allotment I would have thought the likes of Ed Balls would be all for it.[/p][/quote]what utter nonsense there are millions of acres of land in the UK that cold be built on again an utter BS statement BTW why is he not your HERO I mean you should demand a public holiday be made of his birthday (25th feb) after all it was his five tests that kept us out of the Euro, why are you not putting statues up in his honor???[/p][/quote]My mate tells me your colleagues have a standing joke that before they meet you they guess how many lemons you have been sucking on during the day. Apparently a bad day is more than 3 . Today It must be a 5? BrianUKIP
  • Score: 2

7:10pm Mon 3 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
BrianUKIP wrote:
As a n indication of the type of debate that UKIPers produce you need only look at the issue of ERic Pickles, I am sorry if I offend you by calling your clear BS arguments out as such but that is what they are, you won't die from me telling you so get over it.

I thought the Labour party wanted to build loads of houses? If the only way 600 houses can be built is by building over an allotment I would have thought the likes of Ed Balls would be all for it.
Interesting comment Brian and one that identifies one of the fundamental differences between UKIP and the other three main parties.

I know from speaking to people in the local party that we are against the loss of the allotments out of principle. It's simply wrong, no matter who is doing it. An alternative could so easily be found if anyone cared to look.

Labour on the other hand are responding to local concern but at the end of the day if Labour were in power in Westminster and decided to lose the allotments to housing we all know the local party would roll over and act like the LibDems did in TRDC over losing green belt fields, saying "there's nothing can be done about it, we disagree but what can we do? Never mind".

I know that a UKIP party locally, if it believed something was wrong, would stand up for the people in question, even against a government of our own party.

That's because UKIP locally act as independents, working for the people first, party a far off second.

Labour, Cons, LibDems, all act like a bit-part actor in someone else's movie. They do what they are told and take pride in party discipline over representing the people who actually voted them in to power and who pay their wages.

That's one of the reasons UKIP is doing so well, we just are not like that. Independent-minded people are welcome in UKIP.

Vote UKIP, it's the only party that makes any sense.
you do of course ignore the fact that when Labour was in power the plan did not include building on the allotments, and then make a feeble, irrelevant and unsubstantiated point about an entirely hypothetical position that only exists in your mind.
You then role play some non existent power play that has no relation to reality in a Walter Mitty style I suppose
In short BS
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BrianUKIP[/bold] wrote: As a n indication of the type of debate that UKIPers produce you need only look at the issue of ERic Pickles, I am sorry if I offend you by calling your clear BS arguments out as such but that is what they are, you won't die from me telling you so get over it. I thought the Labour party wanted to build loads of houses? If the only way 600 houses can be built is by building over an allotment I would have thought the likes of Ed Balls would be all for it.[/p][/quote]Interesting comment Brian and one that identifies one of the fundamental differences between UKIP and the other three main parties. I know from speaking to people in the local party that we are against the loss of the allotments out of principle. It's simply wrong, no matter who is doing it. An alternative could so easily be found if anyone cared to look. Labour on the other hand are responding to local concern but at the end of the day if Labour were in power in Westminster and decided to lose the allotments to housing we all know the local party would roll over and act like the LibDems did in TRDC over losing green belt fields, saying "there's nothing can be done about it, we disagree but what can we do? Never mind". I know that a UKIP party locally, if it believed something was wrong, would stand up for the people in question, even against a government of our own party. That's because UKIP locally act as independents, working for the people first, party a far off second. Labour, Cons, LibDems, all act like a bit-part actor in someone else's movie. They do what they are told and take pride in party discipline over representing the people who actually voted them in to power and who pay their wages. That's one of the reasons UKIP is doing so well, we just are not like that. Independent-minded people are welcome in UKIP. Vote UKIP, it's the only party that makes any sense.[/p][/quote]you do of course ignore the fact that when Labour was in power the plan did not include building on the allotments, and then make a feeble, irrelevant and unsubstantiated point about an entirely hypothetical position that only exists in your mind. You then role play some non existent power play that has no relation to reality in a Walter Mitty style I suppose In short BS dontknowynot
  • Score: 0

7:11pm Mon 3 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

BrianUKIP wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
BrianUKIP wrote:
As a n indication of the type of debate that UKIPers produce you need only look at the issue of ERic Pickles, I am sorry if I offend you by calling your clear BS arguments out as such but that is what they are, you won't die from me telling you so get over it.

I thought the Labour party wanted to build loads of houses? If the only way 600 houses can be built is by building over an allotment I would have thought the likes of Ed Balls would be all for it.
what utter nonsense there are millions of acres of land in the UK that cold be built on again an utter BS statement
BTW why is he not your HERO I mean you should demand a public holiday be made of his birthday (25th feb) after all it was his five tests that kept us out of the Euro, why are you not putting statues up in his honor???
My mate tells me your colleagues have a standing joke that before they meet you they guess how many lemons you have been sucking on during the day. Apparently a bad day is more than 3 .

Today It must be a 5?
HA HA just exactly who do you think I am
and why
[quote][p][bold]BrianUKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BrianUKIP[/bold] wrote: As a n indication of the type of debate that UKIPers produce you need only look at the issue of ERic Pickles, I am sorry if I offend you by calling your clear BS arguments out as such but that is what they are, you won't die from me telling you so get over it. I thought the Labour party wanted to build loads of houses? If the only way 600 houses can be built is by building over an allotment I would have thought the likes of Ed Balls would be all for it.[/p][/quote]what utter nonsense there are millions of acres of land in the UK that cold be built on again an utter BS statement BTW why is he not your HERO I mean you should demand a public holiday be made of his birthday (25th feb) after all it was his five tests that kept us out of the Euro, why are you not putting statues up in his honor???[/p][/quote]My mate tells me your colleagues have a standing joke that before they meet you they guess how many lemons you have been sucking on during the day. Apparently a bad day is more than 3 . Today It must be a 5?[/p][/quote]HA HA just exactly who do you think I am and why dontknowynot
  • Score: 0

7:19pm Mon 3 Feb 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

dontknowynot wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
BrianUKIP wrote:
As a n indication of the type of debate that UKIPers produce you need only look at the issue of ERic Pickles, I am sorry if I offend you by calling your clear BS arguments out as such but that is what they are, you won't die from me telling you so get over it.

I thought the Labour party wanted to build loads of houses? If the only way 600 houses can be built is by building over an allotment I would have thought the likes of Ed Balls would be all for it.
Interesting comment Brian and one that identifies one of the fundamental differences between UKIP and the other three main parties.

I know from speaking to people in the local party that we are against the loss of the allotments out of principle. It's simply wrong, no matter who is doing it. An alternative could so easily be found if anyone cared to look.

Labour on the other hand are responding to local concern but at the end of the day if Labour were in power in Westminster and decided to lose the allotments to housing we all know the local party would roll over and act like the LibDems did in TRDC over losing green belt fields, saying "there's nothing can be done about it, we disagree but what can we do? Never mind".

I know that a UKIP party locally, if it believed something was wrong, would stand up for the people in question, even against a government of our own party.

That's because UKIP locally act as independents, working for the people first, party a far off second.

Labour, Cons, LibDems, all act like a bit-part actor in someone else's movie. They do what they are told and take pride in party discipline over representing the people who actually voted them in to power and who pay their wages.

That's one of the reasons UKIP is doing so well, we just are not like that. Independent-minded people are welcome in UKIP.

Vote UKIP, it's the only party that makes any sense.
you do of course ignore the fact that when Labour was in power the plan did not include building on the allotments, and then make a feeble, irrelevant and unsubstantiated point about an entirely hypothetical position that only exists in your mind.
You then role play some non existent power play that has no relation to reality in a Walter Mitty style I suppose
In short BS
They say it hurts.
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BrianUKIP[/bold] wrote: As a n indication of the type of debate that UKIPers produce you need only look at the issue of ERic Pickles, I am sorry if I offend you by calling your clear BS arguments out as such but that is what they are, you won't die from me telling you so get over it. I thought the Labour party wanted to build loads of houses? If the only way 600 houses can be built is by building over an allotment I would have thought the likes of Ed Balls would be all for it.[/p][/quote]Interesting comment Brian and one that identifies one of the fundamental differences between UKIP and the other three main parties. I know from speaking to people in the local party that we are against the loss of the allotments out of principle. It's simply wrong, no matter who is doing it. An alternative could so easily be found if anyone cared to look. Labour on the other hand are responding to local concern but at the end of the day if Labour were in power in Westminster and decided to lose the allotments to housing we all know the local party would roll over and act like the LibDems did in TRDC over losing green belt fields, saying "there's nothing can be done about it, we disagree but what can we do? Never mind". I know that a UKIP party locally, if it believed something was wrong, would stand up for the people in question, even against a government of our own party. That's because UKIP locally act as independents, working for the people first, party a far off second. Labour, Cons, LibDems, all act like a bit-part actor in someone else's movie. They do what they are told and take pride in party discipline over representing the people who actually voted them in to power and who pay their wages. That's one of the reasons UKIP is doing so well, we just are not like that. Independent-minded people are welcome in UKIP. Vote UKIP, it's the only party that makes any sense.[/p][/quote]you do of course ignore the fact that when Labour was in power the plan did not include building on the allotments, and then make a feeble, irrelevant and unsubstantiated point about an entirely hypothetical position that only exists in your mind. You then role play some non existent power play that has no relation to reality in a Walter Mitty style I suppose In short BS[/p][/quote]They say it hurts. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: -1

8:01pm Mon 3 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
BrianUKIP wrote:
As a n indication of the type of debate that UKIPers produce you need only look at the issue of ERic Pickles, I am sorry if I offend you by calling your clear BS arguments out as such but that is what they are, you won't die from me telling you so get over it.

I thought the Labour party wanted to build loads of houses? If the only way 600 houses can be built is by building over an allotment I would have thought the likes of Ed Balls would be all for it.
Interesting comment Brian and one that identifies one of the fundamental differences between UKIP and the other three main parties.

I know from speaking to people in the local party that we are against the loss of the allotments out of principle. It's simply wrong, no matter who is doing it. An alternative could so easily be found if anyone cared to look.

Labour on the other hand are responding to local concern but at the end of the day if Labour were in power in Westminster and decided to lose the allotments to housing we all know the local party would roll over and act like the LibDems did in TRDC over losing green belt fields, saying "there's nothing can be done about it, we disagree but what can we do? Never mind".

I know that a UKIP party locally, if it believed something was wrong, would stand up for the people in question, even against a government of our own party.

That's because UKIP locally act as independents, working for the people first, party a far off second.

Labour, Cons, LibDems, all act like a bit-part actor in someone else's movie. They do what they are told and take pride in party discipline over representing the people who actually voted them in to power and who pay their wages.

That's one of the reasons UKIP is doing so well, we just are not like that. Independent-minded people are welcome in UKIP.

Vote UKIP, it's the only party that makes any sense.
you do of course ignore the fact that when Labour was in power the plan did not include building on the allotments, and then make a feeble, irrelevant and unsubstantiated point about an entirely hypothetical position that only exists in your mind.
You then role play some non existent power play that has no relation to reality in a Walter Mitty style I suppose
In short BS
They say it hurts.
even against a government of our own party- come on this just nonsense you do not have one MP let alone a government, unless of course you are referring to your fellow Tory Party.
You are living in Walter Mitty land, mind you I suppose the same could have been said of Alex Salmond at one time, but he first had to get elected to Westminster and your party has no one there.
Just admit it your view of your own party includes the right wing of the Tory Party
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BrianUKIP[/bold] wrote: As a n indication of the type of debate that UKIPers produce you need only look at the issue of ERic Pickles, I am sorry if I offend you by calling your clear BS arguments out as such but that is what they are, you won't die from me telling you so get over it. I thought the Labour party wanted to build loads of houses? If the only way 600 houses can be built is by building over an allotment I would have thought the likes of Ed Balls would be all for it.[/p][/quote]Interesting comment Brian and one that identifies one of the fundamental differences between UKIP and the other three main parties. I know from speaking to people in the local party that we are against the loss of the allotments out of principle. It's simply wrong, no matter who is doing it. An alternative could so easily be found if anyone cared to look. Labour on the other hand are responding to local concern but at the end of the day if Labour were in power in Westminster and decided to lose the allotments to housing we all know the local party would roll over and act like the LibDems did in TRDC over losing green belt fields, saying "there's nothing can be done about it, we disagree but what can we do? Never mind". I know that a UKIP party locally, if it believed something was wrong, would stand up for the people in question, even against a government of our own party. That's because UKIP locally act as independents, working for the people first, party a far off second. Labour, Cons, LibDems, all act like a bit-part actor in someone else's movie. They do what they are told and take pride in party discipline over representing the people who actually voted them in to power and who pay their wages. That's one of the reasons UKIP is doing so well, we just are not like that. Independent-minded people are welcome in UKIP. Vote UKIP, it's the only party that makes any sense.[/p][/quote]you do of course ignore the fact that when Labour was in power the plan did not include building on the allotments, and then make a feeble, irrelevant and unsubstantiated point about an entirely hypothetical position that only exists in your mind. You then role play some non existent power play that has no relation to reality in a Walter Mitty style I suppose In short BS[/p][/quote]They say it hurts.[/p][/quote]even against a government of our own party- come on this just nonsense you do not have one MP let alone a government, unless of course you are referring to your fellow Tory Party. You are living in Walter Mitty land, mind you I suppose the same could have been said of Alex Salmond at one time, but he first had to get elected to Westminster and your party has no one there. Just admit it your view of your own party includes the right wing of the Tory Party dontknowynot
  • Score: 2

8:25pm Mon 3 Feb 14

LSC says...

D_Penn wrote:
Half the problem with so many of today's politicians that they are so unapproachable and detached from the hoi polloi.

Online, all us involved in politics should use our own name so that when people meet you they can associate you with the views you make online and challenge them if they wish. If you believe in what you say then you shouldn't be frightened to debate openly with others.

There is another point as well. If you don't post under your own name there have been examples where somebody else registers as you, pretends to be you, and then posts rubbish in order to damage you. If you are already posting under your own name it makes that dirty trick very unlikely to work.
I was tracked down, on an unrelated issue, via this site and someone contacted my boss with a view to getting me fired. I take that rather seriously.
So yes, I do not post personal opinions under my own name. I would if personal opinions were my business though.
[quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: Half the problem with so many of today's politicians that they are so unapproachable and detached from the hoi polloi. Online, all us involved in politics should use our own name so that when people meet you they can associate you with the views you make online and challenge them if they wish. If you believe in what you say then you shouldn't be frightened to debate openly with others. There is another point as well. If you don't post under your own name there have been examples where somebody else registers as you, pretends to be you, and then posts rubbish in order to damage you. If you are already posting under your own name it makes that dirty trick very unlikely to work.[/p][/quote]I was tracked down, on an unrelated issue, via this site and someone contacted my boss with a view to getting me fired. I take that rather seriously. So yes, I do not post personal opinions under my own name. I would if personal opinions were my business though. LSC
  • Score: 1

8:46pm Mon 3 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

BrianUKIP wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
BrianUKIP wrote:
As a n indication of the type of debate that UKIPers produce you need only look at the issue of ERic Pickles, I am sorry if I offend you by calling your clear BS arguments out as such but that is what they are, you won't die from me telling you so get over it.

I thought the Labour party wanted to build loads of houses? If the only way 600 houses can be built is by building over an allotment I would have thought the likes of Ed Balls would be all for it.
what utter nonsense there are millions of acres of land in the UK that cold be built on again an utter BS statement
BTW why is he not your HERO I mean you should demand a public holiday be made of his birthday (25th feb) after all it was his five tests that kept us out of the Euro, why are you not putting statues up in his honor???
My mate tells me your colleagues have a standing joke that before they meet you they guess how many lemons you have been sucking on during the day. Apparently a bad day is more than 3 .

Today It must be a 5?
but no answer to the question is forthcoming, oh yer its UKIP no surprise there
Why is Ed Balls not your hero he kept us out of the Euro?
who is it you think I am and why?
[quote][p][bold]BrianUKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BrianUKIP[/bold] wrote: As a n indication of the type of debate that UKIPers produce you need only look at the issue of ERic Pickles, I am sorry if I offend you by calling your clear BS arguments out as such but that is what they are, you won't die from me telling you so get over it. I thought the Labour party wanted to build loads of houses? If the only way 600 houses can be built is by building over an allotment I would have thought the likes of Ed Balls would be all for it.[/p][/quote]what utter nonsense there are millions of acres of land in the UK that cold be built on again an utter BS statement BTW why is he not your HERO I mean you should demand a public holiday be made of his birthday (25th feb) after all it was his five tests that kept us out of the Euro, why are you not putting statues up in his honor???[/p][/quote]My mate tells me your colleagues have a standing joke that before they meet you they guess how many lemons you have been sucking on during the day. Apparently a bad day is more than 3 . Today It must be a 5?[/p][/quote]but no answer to the question is forthcoming, oh yer its UKIP no surprise there Why is Ed Balls not your hero he kept us out of the Euro? who is it you think I am and why? dontknowynot
  • Score: -1

8:55pm Mon 3 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

dontknowynot wrote:
BrianUKIP wrote:
As a n indication of the type of debate that UKIPers produce you need only look at the issue of ERic Pickles, I am sorry if I offend you by calling your clear BS arguments out as such but that is what they are, you won't die from me telling you so get over it.

I thought the Labour party wanted to build loads of houses? If the only way 600 houses can be built is by building over an allotment I would have thought the likes of Ed Balls would be all for it.
what utter nonsense there are millions of acres of land in the UK that cold be built on again an utter BS statement
BTW why is he not your HERO I mean you should demand a public holiday be made of his birthday (25th feb) after all it was his five tests that kept us out of the Euro, why are you not putting statues up in his honor???
no answer no surprise its ukip
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BrianUKIP[/bold] wrote: As a n indication of the type of debate that UKIPers produce you need only look at the issue of ERic Pickles, I am sorry if I offend you by calling your clear BS arguments out as such but that is what they are, you won't die from me telling you so get over it. I thought the Labour party wanted to build loads of houses? If the only way 600 houses can be built is by building over an allotment I would have thought the likes of Ed Balls would be all for it.[/p][/quote]what utter nonsense there are millions of acres of land in the UK that cold be built on again an utter BS statement BTW why is he not your HERO I mean you should demand a public holiday be made of his birthday (25th feb) after all it was his five tests that kept us out of the Euro, why are you not putting statues up in his honor???[/p][/quote]no answer no surprise its ukip dontknowynot
  • Score: 0

10:06pm Mon 3 Feb 14

LSC says...

dontknowynot wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
BrianUKIP wrote:
As a n indication of the type of debate that UKIPers produce you need only look at the issue of ERic Pickles, I am sorry if I offend you by calling your clear BS arguments out as such but that is what they are, you won't die from me telling you so get over it.

I thought the Labour party wanted to build loads of houses? If the only way 600 houses can be built is by building over an allotment I would have thought the likes of Ed Balls would be all for it.
what utter nonsense there are millions of acres of land in the UK that cold be built on again an utter BS statement
BTW why is he not your HERO I mean you should demand a public holiday be made of his birthday (25th feb) after all it was his five tests that kept us out of the Euro, why are you not putting statues up in his honor???
no answer no surprise its ukip
You really are running scared of them, aren't you?
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BrianUKIP[/bold] wrote: As a n indication of the type of debate that UKIPers produce you need only look at the issue of ERic Pickles, I am sorry if I offend you by calling your clear BS arguments out as such but that is what they are, you won't die from me telling you so get over it. I thought the Labour party wanted to build loads of houses? If the only way 600 houses can be built is by building over an allotment I would have thought the likes of Ed Balls would be all for it.[/p][/quote]what utter nonsense there are millions of acres of land in the UK that cold be built on again an utter BS statement BTW why is he not your HERO I mean you should demand a public holiday be made of his birthday (25th feb) after all it was his five tests that kept us out of the Euro, why are you not putting statues up in his honor???[/p][/quote]no answer no surprise its ukip[/p][/quote]You really are running scared of them, aren't you? LSC
  • Score: 2

10:08pm Mon 3 Feb 14

BrianUKIP says...

no answer no surprise its ukip

Anne I have spent the evening watching my team beat Man City. I haven't spent the evening waiting to reply to your latest pointless postings.

I am now re- reading your last two posts and its such rubbish I cant be bothered to answer them.

I am off to bed as I have an early start at work tomorrow.
no answer no surprise its ukip Anne I have spent the evening watching my team beat Man City. I haven't spent the evening waiting to reply to your latest pointless postings. I am now re- reading your last two posts and its such rubbish I cant be bothered to answer them. I am off to bed as I have an early start at work tomorrow. BrianUKIP
  • Score: 0

10:28pm Mon 3 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

BrianUKIP wrote:
no answer no surprise its ukip

Anne I have spent the evening watching my team beat Man City. I haven't spent the evening waiting to reply to your latest pointless postings.

I am now re- reading your last two posts and its such rubbish I cant be bothered to answer them.

I am off to bed as I have an early start at work tomorrow.
AN ANSWER well knock me down with a feather:-
you think I am someone called Anne, why is that then??
And what is it with you and this Ann why are you so interested in here and adamant that I am she?
It is not the fantastic Anne Joynes cllr because I have told you I am not her on numerous occasions or are you saying that I am telling porky pies and that this Anne Joynes is also telling Pork Pies?
Come on lets be avin you me ole mucker
[quote][p][bold]BrianUKIP[/bold] wrote: no answer no surprise its ukip Anne I have spent the evening watching my team beat Man City. I haven't spent the evening waiting to reply to your latest pointless postings. I am now re- reading your last two posts and its such rubbish I cant be bothered to answer them. I am off to bed as I have an early start at work tomorrow.[/p][/quote]AN ANSWER well knock me down with a feather:- you think I am someone called Anne, why is that then?? And what is it with you and this Ann why are you so interested in here and adamant that I am she? It is not the fantastic Anne Joynes cllr because I have told you I am not her on numerous occasions or are you saying that I am telling porky pies and that this Anne Joynes is also telling Pork Pies? Come on lets be avin you me ole mucker dontknowynot
  • Score: -1

10:31pm Mon 3 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

LSC wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
BrianUKIP wrote:
As a n indication of the type of debate that UKIPers produce you need only look at the issue of ERic Pickles, I am sorry if I offend you by calling your clear BS arguments out as such but that is what they are, you won't die from me telling you so get over it.

I thought the Labour party wanted to build loads of houses? If the only way 600 houses can be built is by building over an allotment I would have thought the likes of Ed Balls would be all for it.
what utter nonsense there are millions of acres of land in the UK that cold be built on again an utter BS statement
BTW why is he not your HERO I mean you should demand a public holiday be made of his birthday (25th feb) after all it was his five tests that kept us out of the Euro, why are you not putting statues up in his honor???
no answer no surprise its ukip
You really are running scared of them, aren't you?
?
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BrianUKIP[/bold] wrote: As a n indication of the type of debate that UKIPers produce you need only look at the issue of ERic Pickles, I am sorry if I offend you by calling your clear BS arguments out as such but that is what they are, you won't die from me telling you so get over it. I thought the Labour party wanted to build loads of houses? If the only way 600 houses can be built is by building over an allotment I would have thought the likes of Ed Balls would be all for it.[/p][/quote]what utter nonsense there are millions of acres of land in the UK that cold be built on again an utter BS statement BTW why is he not your HERO I mean you should demand a public holiday be made of his birthday (25th feb) after all it was his five tests that kept us out of the Euro, why are you not putting statues up in his honor???[/p][/quote]no answer no surprise its ukip[/p][/quote]You really are running scared of them, aren't you?[/p][/quote]? dontknowynot
  • Score: 0

10:37pm Mon 3 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

BTW there is no way I am going to let you know who I am you might send someone to cut my head off
BTW there is no way I am going to let you know who I am you might send someone to cut my head off dontknowynot
  • Score: -1

11:52pm Mon 3 Feb 14

EU_OUT_NOW says...

dontknowynot wrote:
BTW there is no way I am going to let you know who I am you might send someone to cut my head off
Now what ever gives you that idea.... Darling..):):):)
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: BTW there is no way I am going to let you know who I am you might send someone to cut my head off[/p][/quote]Now what ever gives you that idea.... Darling..):):):) EU_OUT_NOW
  • Score: 0

8:30am Tue 4 Feb 14

BrianUKIP says...

dontknowynot wrote:
BTW there is no way I am going to let you know who I am you might send someone to cut my head off
That was a rather tasteless comment.

I thought I would have a look on line for a couple quotes from Councillor Khan;

“Punishing the thief with anything other than the actual cutting of the hand is a non-Islamic rule. Khilafah Magazine 2004

“The execution of the apostate, by the Khilafah state, was re-invented to only apply to cases of treachery against the state, and not anyone who apostatised. Despite the consensus of the Mujtahid and the fact the hadith states, “Whoever changes his religion, kill him” Khilafah Magazine 2004
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: BTW there is no way I am going to let you know who I am you might send someone to cut my head off[/p][/quote]That was a rather tasteless comment. I thought I would have a look on line for a couple quotes from Councillor Khan; “Punishing the thief with anything other than the actual cutting of the hand is a non-Islamic rule. Khilafah Magazine 2004 “The execution of the apostate, by the Khilafah state, was re-invented to only apply to cases of treachery against the state, and not anyone who apostatised. Despite the consensus of the Mujtahid and the fact the hadith states, “Whoever changes his religion, kill him” Khilafah Magazine 2004 BrianUKIP
  • Score: 1

8:31am Tue 4 Feb 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

dontknowynot wrote:
LSC wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
BrianUKIP wrote:
As a n indication of the type of debate that UKIPers produce you need only look at the issue of ERic Pickles, I am sorry if I offend you by calling your clear BS arguments out as such but that is what they are, you won't die from me telling you so get over it.

I thought the Labour party wanted to build loads of houses? If the only way 600 houses can be built is by building over an allotment I would have thought the likes of Ed Balls would be all for it.
what utter nonsense there are millions of acres of land in the UK that cold be built on again an utter BS statement
BTW why is he not your HERO I mean you should demand a public holiday be made of his birthday (25th feb) after all it was his five tests that kept us out of the Euro, why are you not putting statues up in his honor???
no answer no surprise its ukip
You really are running scared of them, aren't you?
?
LSC said

"You really are running scared of them, aren't you?"

I'm not sure "?" is a sufficient answer

....but if it's all you've got it will have to do.
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BrianUKIP[/bold] wrote: As a n indication of the type of debate that UKIPers produce you need only look at the issue of ERic Pickles, I am sorry if I offend you by calling your clear BS arguments out as such but that is what they are, you won't die from me telling you so get over it. I thought the Labour party wanted to build loads of houses? If the only way 600 houses can be built is by building over an allotment I would have thought the likes of Ed Balls would be all for it.[/p][/quote]what utter nonsense there are millions of acres of land in the UK that cold be built on again an utter BS statement BTW why is he not your HERO I mean you should demand a public holiday be made of his birthday (25th feb) after all it was his five tests that kept us out of the Euro, why are you not putting statues up in his honor???[/p][/quote]no answer no surprise its ukip[/p][/quote]You really are running scared of them, aren't you?[/p][/quote]?[/p][/quote]LSC said "You really are running scared of them, aren't you?" I'm not sure "?" is a sufficient answer ....but if it's all you've got it will have to do. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: 2

8:54am Tue 4 Feb 14

BrianUKIP says...

BrianUKIP wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
BTW there is no way I am going to let you know who I am you might send someone to cut my head off
That was a rather tasteless comment.

I thought I would have a look on line for a couple quotes from Councillor Khan;

“Punishing the thief with anything other than the actual cutting of the hand is a non-Islamic rule. Khilafah Magazine 2004

“The execution of the apostate, by the Khilafah state, was re-invented to only apply to cases of treachery against the state, and not anyone who apostatised. Despite the consensus of the Mujtahid and the fact the hadith states, “Whoever changes his religion, kill him” Khilafah Magazine 2004
Sorry I should have explained that the Khilafah Magazine, is the Hizb-ut-Tahrir monthly publication Khan wrote for.
[quote][p][bold]BrianUKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: BTW there is no way I am going to let you know who I am you might send someone to cut my head off[/p][/quote]That was a rather tasteless comment. I thought I would have a look on line for a couple quotes from Councillor Khan; “Punishing the thief with anything other than the actual cutting of the hand is a non-Islamic rule. Khilafah Magazine 2004 “The execution of the apostate, by the Khilafah state, was re-invented to only apply to cases of treachery against the state, and not anyone who apostatised. Despite the consensus of the Mujtahid and the fact the hadith states, “Whoever changes his religion, kill him” Khilafah Magazine 2004[/p][/quote]Sorry I should have explained that the Khilafah Magazine, is the Hizb-ut-Tahrir monthly publication Khan wrote for. BrianUKIP
  • Score: 1

9:40am Tue 4 Feb 14

D_Penn says...

dontknowynot wrote:
BTW there is no way I am going to let you know who I am you might send someone to cut my head off
No point. Your loss of that item wouldn't make your posts any worse.
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: BTW there is no way I am going to let you know who I am you might send someone to cut my head off[/p][/quote]No point. Your loss of that item wouldn't make your posts any worse. D_Penn
  • Score: 3

10:02am Tue 4 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

Yes in retrospect my joke was a tasteless, it was a joke and does appear to have given at least one person a chuckle, but yes I do apologise to anyone who was genuinely offended by it:- Sorry
Brian the news today is not of what Cllr Khan wrote 10 years ago, it really is of little relevance as even your own mayoral candidate is prepared to suck it and see on the issue of Cllr Khan (unless of course he were to want to join UKIP, which lets face it is not very likely). The news today is the apparent rolling omnishambles of UKIP selection of officials, councillors, and even MEP’s
Whilst I have accepted at face value the chuckle from a UKIPer as that a chuckle at a bad taste joke, it may of course have been chuckle at the prospect of more Khan bashing in which case I say sorry to cllr Khan
Finally I suspect You do your party no favours by continuing with this line of attack on Cllr Asif Khan, as an aside on that
Yes in retrospect my joke was a tasteless, it was a joke and does appear to have given at least one person a chuckle, but yes I do apologise to anyone who was genuinely offended by it:- Sorry Brian the news today is not of what Cllr Khan wrote 10 years ago, it really is of little relevance as even your own mayoral candidate is prepared to suck it and see on the issue of Cllr Khan (unless of course he were to want to join UKIP, which lets face it is not very likely). The news today is the apparent rolling omnishambles of UKIP selection of officials, councillors, and even MEP’s Whilst I have accepted at face value the chuckle from a UKIPer as that a chuckle at a bad taste joke, it may of course have been chuckle at the prospect of more Khan bashing in which case I say sorry to cllr Khan Finally I suspect You do your party no favours by continuing with this line of attack on Cllr Asif Khan, as an aside on that dontknowynot
  • Score: -1

10:18am Tue 4 Feb 14

D_Penn says...

@dontknowynot

You said: "BTW there is no way I am going to let you know who I am you might send someone to cut my head off"

...and then...

"Yes in retrospect my joke was a tasteless, it was a joke and does appear to have given at least one person a chuckle, but yes I do apologise to anyone who was genuinely offended by it:- Sorry"

Actually, I think it was one of your best posts. I have met too many arch left-wingers who are utterly humourless, so far from being offensive, I quite appreciated the joke.

And the offer to meet for a chat still goes. We don't bite (much) and sold our guillotine off some time ago to raise funds.
@dontknowynot You said: "BTW there is no way I am going to let you know who I am you might send someone to cut my head off" ...and then... "Yes in retrospect my joke was a tasteless, it was a joke and does appear to have given at least one person a chuckle, but yes I do apologise to anyone who was genuinely offended by it:- Sorry" Actually, I think it was one of your best posts. I have met too many arch left-wingers who are utterly humourless, so far from being offensive, I quite appreciated the joke. And the offer to meet for a chat still goes. We don't bite (much) and sold our guillotine off some time ago to raise funds. D_Penn
  • Score: 0

10:35am Tue 4 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

D_Penn wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
BTW there is no way I am going to let you know who I am you might send someone to cut my head off
No point. Your loss of that item wouldn't make your posts any worse.
Meouwww
[quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: BTW there is no way I am going to let you know who I am you might send someone to cut my head off[/p][/quote]No point. Your loss of that item wouldn't make your posts any worse.[/p][/quote]Meouwww dontknowynot
  • Score: 0

10:40am Tue 4 Feb 14

BrianUKIP says...

I am highlighting your hypocrisy in allowing such a person to stand as a candidate for your party.

I quote from an online article about him;
He is also a former member of Hizb-ut-Tahrir Britain, believed by a prominent former Hizb-ut-Tahrir member to have left the movement sometime between 2008 and 2011.
He was elected to the Executive Committee in March 2004. As well as this, he may have been head of their Pakistan Committee, though the source for this information in unverifiable as the Hizb-ut-Tahrir website page it links to is no longer available.
He is credited as both the Editor and Editorial Adviser in numerous articles of Khilafah Magazine, the Hizb-ut-Tahrir monthly, between October 2001 and March 2004, though he had also written several articles for the magazine dating back to February 2001 before he moved to these positions.

He was a member of Hizb-ut-Tahrir until 2008/2011 not much of a gap between extremist group and being elected a Labour Councillor in 2011?

When he was in opposition, Mr Cameron called for the group Hizb ut-Tahrir to be banned and attacked Labour for failing to act. Independent Friday 12 July 2013
I am highlighting your hypocrisy in allowing such a person to stand as a candidate for your party. I quote from an online article about him; He is also a former member of Hizb-ut-Tahrir Britain, believed by a prominent former Hizb-ut-Tahrir member to have left the movement sometime between 2008 and 2011. He was elected to the Executive Committee in March 2004. As well as this, he may have been head of their Pakistan Committee, though the source for this information in unverifiable as the Hizb-ut-Tahrir website page it links to is no longer available. He is credited as both the Editor and Editorial Adviser in numerous articles of Khilafah Magazine, the Hizb-ut-Tahrir monthly, between October 2001 and March 2004, though he had also written several articles for the magazine dating back to February 2001 before he moved to these positions. He was a member of Hizb-ut-Tahrir until 2008/2011 not much of a gap between extremist group and being elected a Labour Councillor in 2011? When he was in opposition, Mr Cameron called for the group Hizb ut-Tahrir to be banned and attacked Labour for failing to act. Independent Friday 12 July 2013 BrianUKIP
  • Score: 3

11:31am Tue 4 Feb 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

D_Penn wrote:
@dontknowynot

You said: "BTW there is no way I am going to let you know who I am you might send someone to cut my head off"

...and then...

"Yes in retrospect my joke was a tasteless, it was a joke and does appear to have given at least one person a chuckle, but yes I do apologise to anyone who was genuinely offended by it:- Sorry"

Actually, I think it was one of your best posts. I have met too many arch left-wingers who are utterly humourless, so far from being offensive, I quite appreciated the joke.

And the offer to meet for a chat still goes. We don't bite (much) and sold our guillotine off some time ago to raise funds.
Someone made a joke about HRT and DKYN then takes that as an insult to all women.

DKYN then makes a joke about cutting off a head.

Double standards?

Of course.


The fact is people should be able to make jokes without people taking offence on behalf of someone else, particularly if they are looking to find offence.

DKYN take note but please don't take offence.
[quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: @dontknowynot You said: "BTW there is no way I am going to let you know who I am you might send someone to cut my head off" ...and then... "Yes in retrospect my joke was a tasteless, it was a joke and does appear to have given at least one person a chuckle, but yes I do apologise to anyone who was genuinely offended by it:- Sorry" Actually, I think it was one of your best posts. I have met too many arch left-wingers who are utterly humourless, so far from being offensive, I quite appreciated the joke. And the offer to meet for a chat still goes. We don't bite (much) and sold our guillotine off some time ago to raise funds.[/p][/quote]Someone made a joke about HRT and DKYN then takes that as an insult to all women. DKYN then makes a joke about cutting off a head. Double standards? Of course. The fact is people should be able to make jokes without people taking offence on behalf of someone else, particularly if they are looking to find offence. DKYN take note but please don't take offence. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: 1

12:27pm Tue 4 Feb 14

D_Penn says...

That's the whole problem with causing offence. It has become part of the liberal dictatorship agenda that nobody should cause offence to anyone. Yet such ultra-politeness is as unsustainable as it is unnatural, but there is an underlying trend that seems to working towards getting causing any sort of offence banned.

It is virtaully impossible to avoid giving unintentional offence when making a comment. Since almost anything of significance you say could cause offence somewhere there is little point going around apologising to everybody all the time, but that's the way it's getting.

These days it appears that politicians are supposed to walk on eggshells just in case some clot yells to the press 'I found that offensive!'.

Worse, when did the world become so childish that giving offence now can result in people losing their jobs - or even be threatened with imprisonment - for the mildest remarks - particularly where race or gender is involved?

And that is a big point. Why would someone throwing a sexist or racist insult at me personally be more serious that insulting my baldness? A personal insult about my baldness is not an attack on all bald people, it would just be an attempt to annoy me. However, if someone foreign used my Englishness, as part of an insult, similarly it would not be an attack on all English people, but he could find himslef having his collar felt if it was reported (and it wouldn't even have to be me doing the reporting) to the police. HE could even find himself doing a stretch. Madness, unfair, way over the top and a direct attack on free speech.

The truth of the matter is that this faux ultra-sensitivity has been used time and again for political purposes to try to silence proper debate on sensitive subjects. The result is that now you cannot even risk telling an 'Englishman/Irishman
/Scotsman' joke in public these days without worrying whether some idiot will report simple comedy as a racist 'hate crime' even though making fun out of stereotypical traits has been a mainstay of joke telling throughout history.

Let's be clear. Threatening language is always wrong (and has long been a crime) and constant verbal insulting harrassment of an individual is persistant bullying and also wrong. But the one off verbal insult, no matter how offensive, should be accepted as part of life and dealt with by the recipient with a suitable retort. We should never have got the point where lawyers and courts make a fortune out of a person's off-the-cuff insult thrown in a moment of anger.

It is well past the time that we returned to having a proper perspective on the very human trait of throwing the odd insult when angry. Older people will remember just simply ignoring such comments with the view 'Sticks and stones...' as the old saying went. They knew that there were far more important things in life to worry about.
That's the whole problem with causing offence. It has become part of the liberal dictatorship agenda that nobody should cause offence to anyone. Yet such ultra-politeness is as unsustainable as it is unnatural, but there is an underlying trend that seems to working towards getting causing any sort of offence banned. It is virtaully impossible to avoid giving unintentional offence when making a comment. Since almost anything of significance you say could cause offence somewhere there is little point going around apologising to everybody all the time, but that's the way it's getting. These days it appears that politicians are supposed to walk on eggshells just in case some clot yells to the press 'I found that offensive!'. Worse, when did the world become so childish that giving offence now can result in people losing their jobs - or even be threatened with imprisonment - for the mildest remarks - particularly where race or gender is involved? And that is a big point. Why would someone throwing a sexist or racist insult at me personally be more serious that insulting my baldness? A personal insult about my baldness is not an attack on all bald people, it would just be an attempt to annoy me. However, if someone foreign used my Englishness, as part of an insult, similarly it would not be an attack on all English people, but he could find himslef having his collar felt if it was reported (and it wouldn't even have to be me doing the reporting) to the police. HE could even find himself doing a stretch. Madness, unfair, way over the top and a direct attack on free speech. The truth of the matter is that this faux ultra-sensitivity has been used time and again for political purposes to try to silence proper debate on sensitive subjects. The result is that now you cannot even risk telling an 'Englishman/Irishman /Scotsman' joke in public these days without worrying whether some idiot will report simple comedy as a racist 'hate crime' even though making fun out of stereotypical traits has been a mainstay of joke telling throughout history. Let's be clear. Threatening language is always wrong (and has long been a crime) and constant verbal insulting harrassment of an individual is persistant bullying and also wrong. But the one off verbal insult, no matter how offensive, should be accepted as part of life and dealt with by the recipient with a suitable retort. We should never have got the point where lawyers and courts make a fortune out of a person's off-the-cuff insult thrown in a moment of anger. It is well past the time that we returned to having a proper perspective on the very human trait of throwing the odd insult when angry. Older people will remember just simply ignoring such comments with the view 'Sticks and stones...' as the old saying went. They knew that there were far more important things in life to worry about. D_Penn
  • Score: -1

12:45pm Tue 4 Feb 14

EU_OUT_NOW says...

D_Penn says...

"Worse, when did the world become so childish that giving offence now can result in people losing their jobs - or even be threatened with imprisonment - for the mildest remarks - particularly where race or gender is involved?"

When the EU and the Politically Correct idiots took control of the UK. Time to leave the EU? Vote UKIP
D_Penn says... "Worse, when did the world become so childish that giving offence now can result in people losing their jobs - or even be threatened with imprisonment - for the mildest remarks - particularly where race or gender is involved?" When the EU and the Politically Correct idiots took control of the UK. Time to leave the EU? Vote UKIP EU_OUT_NOW
  • Score: -1

1:08pm Tue 4 Feb 14

LSC says...

EU_OUT_NOW wrote:
D_Penn says...

"Worse, when did the world become so childish that giving offence now can result in people losing their jobs - or even be threatened with imprisonment - for the mildest remarks - particularly where race or gender is involved?"

When the EU and the Politically Correct idiots took control of the UK. Time to leave the EU? Vote UKIP
While I broadly agree, take a look at the story up the page about the Bushey Councillor.
Some people, in some jobs, should not be offensive. I don't mind people on here insulting me, it happens all the time. But I would worry if a policeman on duty or prime minister did it, like Gordon Brown that time when he called that lady a bigot for having an opinion different to his own.
That wasn't sticks and stones, that was an insight into the contempt our politicians hold us in, and is, quite rightly, offensive.
[quote][p][bold]EU_OUT_NOW[/bold] wrote: D_Penn says... "Worse, when did the world become so childish that giving offence now can result in people losing their jobs - or even be threatened with imprisonment - for the mildest remarks - particularly where race or gender is involved?" When the EU and the Politically Correct idiots took control of the UK. Time to leave the EU? Vote UKIP[/p][/quote]While I broadly agree, take a look at the story up the page about the Bushey Councillor. Some people, in some jobs, should not be offensive. I don't mind people on here insulting me, it happens all the time. But I would worry if a policeman on duty or prime minister did it, like Gordon Brown that time when he called that lady a bigot for having an opinion different to his own. That wasn't sticks and stones, that was an insight into the contempt our politicians hold us in, and is, quite rightly, offensive. LSC
  • Score: 2

1:23pm Tue 4 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

dontknowynot wrote:
Yes in retrospect my joke was a tasteless, it was a joke and does appear to have given at least one person a chuckle, but yes I do apologise to anyone who was genuinely offended by it:- Sorry
Brian the news today is not of what Cllr Khan wrote 10 years ago, it really is of little relevance as even your own mayoral candidate is prepared to suck it and see on the issue of Cllr Khan (unless of course he were to want to join UKIP, which lets face it is not very likely). The news today is the apparent rolling omnishambles of UKIP selection of officials, councillors, and even MEP’s
Whilst I have accepted at face value the chuckle from a UKIPer as that a chuckle at a bad taste joke, it may of course have been chuckle at the prospect of more Khan bashing in which case I say sorry to cllr Khan
Finally I suspect You do your party no favours by continuing with this line of attack on Cllr Asif Khan, as an aside on that
Context is quite clearly relevant.
On this I Would suggest my comment was just a joke relating to a bit of a knock about associated with annon status and the news about the background of a figure within UKIP.
On the HRT comment the context is an all male local committee of UKIP , a history of sexist comments by Bloom and latterly Agnew, and indeed the assertions re women in the workplace of your leader.
if you want to go on about it fine, but you will only highlight the perception of your party being Misogynistic due to the context
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: Yes in retrospect my joke was a tasteless, it was a joke and does appear to have given at least one person a chuckle, but yes I do apologise to anyone who was genuinely offended by it:- Sorry Brian the news today is not of what Cllr Khan wrote 10 years ago, it really is of little relevance as even your own mayoral candidate is prepared to suck it and see on the issue of Cllr Khan (unless of course he were to want to join UKIP, which lets face it is not very likely). The news today is the apparent rolling omnishambles of UKIP selection of officials, councillors, and even MEP’s Whilst I have accepted at face value the chuckle from a UKIPer as that a chuckle at a bad taste joke, it may of course have been chuckle at the prospect of more Khan bashing in which case I say sorry to cllr Khan Finally I suspect You do your party no favours by continuing with this line of attack on Cllr Asif Khan, as an aside on that[/p][/quote]Context is quite clearly relevant. On this I Would suggest my comment was just a joke relating to a bit of a knock about associated with annon status and the news about the background of a figure within UKIP. On the HRT comment the context is an all male local committee of UKIP , a history of sexist comments by Bloom and latterly Agnew, and indeed the assertions re women in the workplace of your leader. if you want to go on about it fine, but you will only highlight the perception of your party being Misogynistic due to the context dontknowynot
  • Score: -2

1:25pm Tue 4 Feb 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

LSC wrote:
EU_OUT_NOW wrote:
D_Penn says...

"Worse, when did the world become so childish that giving offence now can result in people losing their jobs - or even be threatened with imprisonment - for the mildest remarks - particularly where race or gender is involved?"

When the EU and the Politically Correct idiots took control of the UK. Time to leave the EU? Vote UKIP
While I broadly agree, take a look at the story up the page about the Bushey Councillor.
Some people, in some jobs, should not be offensive. I don't mind people on here insulting me, it happens all the time. But I would worry if a policeman on duty or prime minister did it, like Gordon Brown that time when he called that lady a bigot for having an opinion different to his own.
That wasn't sticks and stones, that was an insight into the contempt our politicians hold us in, and is, quite rightly, offensive.
LSC,

once again I find myself in complete agreement with you.

Contempt by politicians is shameful.

I was witness to a LibDem councillor call, loud enough to be heard in chamber, protesters to the loss of Farm Terrace "Nimby's".

Little did we know at the time that there was no or little health aspect to the "Housing Campus" development and we were told again and again by the LibDems that to oppose whatever development the LibDems were proposing for that site was to be against a new hospital for Watford.

To this date I have never heard Peter Jeffree apologise so I can only assume that misleading residents and holding residents in contempt is acceptable to both him and his party.

An apology is in order Peter.It is the least you can do.

Or is it a case of apologies are not something LibDems do?

Shameful! Watford can do without electing politicians who believe that that is acceptable behaviour.
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]EU_OUT_NOW[/bold] wrote: D_Penn says... "Worse, when did the world become so childish that giving offence now can result in people losing their jobs - or even be threatened with imprisonment - for the mildest remarks - particularly where race or gender is involved?" When the EU and the Politically Correct idiots took control of the UK. Time to leave the EU? Vote UKIP[/p][/quote]While I broadly agree, take a look at the story up the page about the Bushey Councillor. Some people, in some jobs, should not be offensive. I don't mind people on here insulting me, it happens all the time. But I would worry if a policeman on duty or prime minister did it, like Gordon Brown that time when he called that lady a bigot for having an opinion different to his own. That wasn't sticks and stones, that was an insight into the contempt our politicians hold us in, and is, quite rightly, offensive.[/p][/quote]LSC, once again I find myself in complete agreement with you. Contempt by politicians is shameful. I was witness to a LibDem councillor call, loud enough to be heard in chamber, protesters to the loss of Farm Terrace "Nimby's". Little did we know at the time that there was no or little health aspect to the "Housing Campus" development and we were told again and again by the LibDems that to oppose whatever development the LibDems were proposing for that site was to be against a new hospital for Watford. To this date I have never heard Peter Jeffree apologise so I can only assume that misleading residents and holding residents in contempt is acceptable to both him and his party. An apology is in order Peter.It is the least you can do. Or is it a case of apologies are not something LibDems do? Shameful! Watford can do without electing politicians who believe that that is acceptable behaviour. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: 1

1:33pm Tue 4 Feb 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

dontknowynot wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
Yes in retrospect my joke was a tasteless, it was a joke and does appear to have given at least one person a chuckle, but yes I do apologise to anyone who was genuinely offended by it:- Sorry
Brian the news today is not of what Cllr Khan wrote 10 years ago, it really is of little relevance as even your own mayoral candidate is prepared to suck it and see on the issue of Cllr Khan (unless of course he were to want to join UKIP, which lets face it is not very likely). The news today is the apparent rolling omnishambles of UKIP selection of officials, councillors, and even MEP’s
Whilst I have accepted at face value the chuckle from a UKIPer as that a chuckle at a bad taste joke, it may of course have been chuckle at the prospect of more Khan bashing in which case I say sorry to cllr Khan
Finally I suspect You do your party no favours by continuing with this line of attack on Cllr Asif Khan, as an aside on that
Context is quite clearly relevant.
On this I Would suggest my comment was just a joke relating to a bit of a knock about associated with annon status and the news about the background of a figure within UKIP.
On the HRT comment the context is an all male local committee of UKIP , a history of sexist comments by Bloom and latterly Agnew, and indeed the assertions re women in the workplace of your leader.
if you want to go on about it fine, but you will only highlight the perception of your party being Misogynistic due to the context
Your Labour spying network is obviously not working very well.

We have no need of political correctness or quotas so the number of females on our local committee is down to their ability and desire to sit on the committee.

We have females on our local committee.

Better sit down for this one. One of them is ex-Labour.

Yet another example of prejudice not letting the facts get in the way of insulting the party that is the greatest threat to the Labour party in modern times.
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: Yes in retrospect my joke was a tasteless, it was a joke and does appear to have given at least one person a chuckle, but yes I do apologise to anyone who was genuinely offended by it:- Sorry Brian the news today is not of what Cllr Khan wrote 10 years ago, it really is of little relevance as even your own mayoral candidate is prepared to suck it and see on the issue of Cllr Khan (unless of course he were to want to join UKIP, which lets face it is not very likely). The news today is the apparent rolling omnishambles of UKIP selection of officials, councillors, and even MEP’s Whilst I have accepted at face value the chuckle from a UKIPer as that a chuckle at a bad taste joke, it may of course have been chuckle at the prospect of more Khan bashing in which case I say sorry to cllr Khan Finally I suspect You do your party no favours by continuing with this line of attack on Cllr Asif Khan, as an aside on that[/p][/quote]Context is quite clearly relevant. On this I Would suggest my comment was just a joke relating to a bit of a knock about associated with annon status and the news about the background of a figure within UKIP. On the HRT comment the context is an all male local committee of UKIP , a history of sexist comments by Bloom and latterly Agnew, and indeed the assertions re women in the workplace of your leader. if you want to go on about it fine, but you will only highlight the perception of your party being Misogynistic due to the context[/p][/quote]Your Labour spying network is obviously not working very well. We have no need of political correctness or quotas so the number of females on our local committee is down to their ability and desire to sit on the committee. We have females on our local committee. Better sit down for this one. One of them is ex-Labour. Yet another example of prejudice not letting the facts get in the way of insulting the party that is the greatest threat to the Labour party in modern times. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: 1

1:59pm Tue 4 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
Yes in retrospect my joke was a tasteless, it was a joke and does appear to have given at least one person a chuckle, but yes I do apologise to anyone who was genuinely offended by it:- Sorry
Brian the news today is not of what Cllr Khan wrote 10 years ago, it really is of little relevance as even your own mayoral candidate is prepared to suck it and see on the issue of Cllr Khan (unless of course he were to want to join UKIP, which lets face it is not very likely). The news today is the apparent rolling omnishambles of UKIP selection of officials, councillors, and even MEP’s
Whilst I have accepted at face value the chuckle from a UKIPer as that a chuckle at a bad taste joke, it may of course have been chuckle at the prospect of more Khan bashing in which case I say sorry to cllr Khan
Finally I suspect You do your party no favours by continuing with this line of attack on Cllr Asif Khan, as an aside on that
Context is quite clearly relevant.
On this I Would suggest my comment was just a joke relating to a bit of a knock about associated with annon status and the news about the background of a figure within UKIP.
On the HRT comment the context is an all male local committee of UKIP , a history of sexist comments by Bloom and latterly Agnew, and indeed the assertions re women in the workplace of your leader.
if you want to go on about it fine, but you will only highlight the perception of your party being Misogynistic due to the context
Your Labour spying network is obviously not working very well.

We have no need of political correctness or quotas so the number of females on our local committee is down to their ability and desire to sit on the committee.

We have females on our local committee.

Better sit down for this one. One of them is ex-Labour.

Yet another example of prejudice not letting the facts get in the way of insulting the party that is the greatest threat to the Labour party in modern times.
would you please explain what you mean by "your Labour spying network"
I have no such thing.

Clearly you are mistaking me for someone else.

I remain anon because that is what I chose todo, not because I have any party political roll, I am currently a Labour party member but have not been long, and doubt that I have been a member long enough to be a candidate, hence you might find that there are posts out there where I say I am not a party animal, ie not a party member.

As for your party's continued kind offers to meet how on earth do you know we have not; indeed I have in the past spoken to some UKIP members and candidates I disagree with you on nearly every issue, but will admit that in broad terms your policy on Farm Terrace allotments is a good one, although I have differed on your perspective on aspects of it.

I do find that the anti PC line is wearing a bit thin, the line that paraphrase "calm down dear take your HRT" is offensive, you maintain your right to be offensive, fine keep saying it and never say sorry, it is I suppose your right.

BTW it is not really PC is it, its just an aversion to rudeness and sexist, and yes like most there is good and bad things about it, but come on defending such a comment without there being so much as an "opps that was a bit naughty" in the context I have set out is not the wisest thing to do

but hey ho its your election go about offending as many people as you like
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: Yes in retrospect my joke was a tasteless, it was a joke and does appear to have given at least one person a chuckle, but yes I do apologise to anyone who was genuinely offended by it:- Sorry Brian the news today is not of what Cllr Khan wrote 10 years ago, it really is of little relevance as even your own mayoral candidate is prepared to suck it and see on the issue of Cllr Khan (unless of course he were to want to join UKIP, which lets face it is not very likely). The news today is the apparent rolling omnishambles of UKIP selection of officials, councillors, and even MEP’s Whilst I have accepted at face value the chuckle from a UKIPer as that a chuckle at a bad taste joke, it may of course have been chuckle at the prospect of more Khan bashing in which case I say sorry to cllr Khan Finally I suspect You do your party no favours by continuing with this line of attack on Cllr Asif Khan, as an aside on that[/p][/quote]Context is quite clearly relevant. On this I Would suggest my comment was just a joke relating to a bit of a knock about associated with annon status and the news about the background of a figure within UKIP. On the HRT comment the context is an all male local committee of UKIP , a history of sexist comments by Bloom and latterly Agnew, and indeed the assertions re women in the workplace of your leader. if you want to go on about it fine, but you will only highlight the perception of your party being Misogynistic due to the context[/p][/quote]Your Labour spying network is obviously not working very well. We have no need of political correctness or quotas so the number of females on our local committee is down to their ability and desire to sit on the committee. We have females on our local committee. Better sit down for this one. One of them is ex-Labour. Yet another example of prejudice not letting the facts get in the way of insulting the party that is the greatest threat to the Labour party in modern times.[/p][/quote]would you please explain what you mean by "your Labour spying network" I have no such thing. Clearly you are mistaking me for someone else. I remain anon because that is what I chose todo, not because I have any party political roll, I am currently a Labour party member but have not been long, and doubt that I have been a member long enough to be a candidate, hence you might find that there are posts out there where I say I am not a party animal, ie not a party member. As for your party's continued kind offers to meet how on earth do you know we have not; indeed I have in the past spoken to some UKIP members and candidates I disagree with you on nearly every issue, but will admit that in broad terms your policy on Farm Terrace allotments is a good one, although I have differed on your perspective on aspects of it. I do find that the anti PC line is wearing a bit thin, the line that paraphrase "calm down dear take your HRT" is offensive, you maintain your right to be offensive, fine keep saying it and never say sorry, it is I suppose your right. BTW it is not really PC is it, its just an aversion to rudeness and sexist, and yes like most there is good and bad things about it, but come on defending such a comment without there being so much as an "opps that was a bit naughty" in the context I have set out is not the wisest thing to do but hey ho its your election go about offending as many people as you like dontknowynot
  • Score: 0

2:13pm Tue 4 Feb 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

???

You said we had an all-male local committee.

I pointed out that was untrue and in fact one of the women on our local committee is ex-Labour.

Now you say I have offended people with that response. Local Labour party committee maybe, but not anyone else I suspect.

Logic? There is none.

I also love your line re Farm Terrace. " but will admit that in broad terms your policy on Farm Terrace allotments is a good one, although I have differed on your perspective on aspects of it."

We are unequivocal. We will do our utmost to reverse current decisions and save Farm Terrace allotments.

What would you do differently? Just save a bit of it? Or is it just more Labour posturing?

No wonder people are getting fed up of the games played by the other parties and moving to the straight-talking Ukip.
??? You said we had an all-male local committee. I pointed out that was untrue and in fact one of the women on our local committee is ex-Labour. Now you say I have offended people with that response. Local Labour party committee maybe, but not anyone else I suspect. Logic? There is none. I also love your line re Farm Terrace. " but will admit that in broad terms your policy on Farm Terrace allotments is a good one, although I have differed on your perspective on aspects of it." We are unequivocal. We will do our utmost to reverse current decisions and save Farm Terrace allotments. What would you do differently? Just save a bit of it? Or is it just more Labour posturing? No wonder people are getting fed up of the games played by the other parties and moving to the straight-talking Ukip. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: 0

2:29pm Tue 4 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
???

You said we had an all-male local committee.

I pointed out that was untrue and in fact one of the women on our local committee is ex-Labour.

Now you say I have offended people with that response. Local Labour party committee maybe, but not anyone else I suspect.

Logic? There is none.

I also love your line re Farm Terrace. " but will admit that in broad terms your policy on Farm Terrace allotments is a good one, although I have differed on your perspective on aspects of it."

We are unequivocal. We will do our utmost to reverse current decisions and save Farm Terrace allotments.

What would you do differently? Just save a bit of it? Or is it just more Labour posturing?

No wonder people are getting fed up of the games played by the other parties and moving to the straight-talking Ukip.
clearly then it might be an idea to update your website then, and maybe list all the members that way people wouldn't be under the mistaken (yet logical and entirely understandable misconception that you have an all male committee
http://www.ukip-watf
ord.org.uk/the-commi
ttee.htm

Just saying
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: ??? You said we had an all-male local committee. I pointed out that was untrue and in fact one of the women on our local committee is ex-Labour. Now you say I have offended people with that response. Local Labour party committee maybe, but not anyone else I suspect. Logic? There is none. I also love your line re Farm Terrace. " but will admit that in broad terms your policy on Farm Terrace allotments is a good one, although I have differed on your perspective on aspects of it." We are unequivocal. We will do our utmost to reverse current decisions and save Farm Terrace allotments. What would you do differently? Just save a bit of it? Or is it just more Labour posturing? No wonder people are getting fed up of the games played by the other parties and moving to the straight-talking Ukip.[/p][/quote]clearly then it might be an idea to update your website then, and maybe list all the members that way people wouldn't be under the mistaken (yet logical and entirely understandable misconception that you have an all male committee http://www.ukip-watf ord.org.uk/the-commi ttee.htm Just saying dontknowynot
  • Score: 0

2:31pm Tue 4 Feb 14

EU_OUT_NOW says...

dontknowynot says...

I do find that the anti PC line is wearing a bit thin, the line that paraphrase "calm down dear take your HRT" is offensive, you maintain your right to be offensive, fine keep saying it and never say sorry, it is I suppose your right...............
.........

Listen sweetie, you are targeting the wrong people. I made this comment, it was a joke targeted at YOU specifically. A bit like your joke about cutting off body parts, your head? The overuse of Misogynistic (I gather you mean "dislike women") is nonsense. I love women! They are the most wonderful creature God ever created. I will never understand the way they think, hence I have three ex wives, but hey, I keep trying! Do I intend to apologise? certainly not.. I have watched you spit venom and insults on here week after week at everyone and everything, rather like a hungry parasite with OCD. Get over it, you dish it out, expect it back! If it offends your female sensitivities, then serve you right for hiding behind a pseudonym
dontknowynot says... I do find that the anti PC line is wearing a bit thin, the line that paraphrase "calm down dear take your HRT" is offensive, you maintain your right to be offensive, fine keep saying it and never say sorry, it is I suppose your right............... ......... Listen sweetie, you are targeting the wrong people. I made this comment, it was a joke targeted at YOU specifically. A bit like your joke about cutting off body parts, your head? The overuse of Misogynistic (I gather you mean "dislike women") is nonsense. I love women! They are the most wonderful creature God ever created. I will never understand the way they think, hence I have three ex wives, but hey, I keep trying! Do I intend to apologise? certainly not.. I have watched you spit venom and insults on here week after week at everyone and everything, rather like a hungry parasite with OCD. Get over it, you dish it out, expect it back! If it offends your female sensitivities, then serve you right for hiding behind a pseudonym EU_OUT_NOW
  • Score: 1

2:37pm Tue 4 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

I have said that the comment
"calm down and take your HRT" is sexist it is
I have suggested in context an appropriate response is "ooops thats a bit naughty" not flogging anyone a tipsiest bit of acknowledgement, and then move on, but you want to get all "you and your Labour spies"

Do you really think Im have Labour spies or that if Labour had spies it would waste them on you.

Is it because I have rumbled your target seat as being the Meriden, simple logic I am afraid thats where you tried last time and where your charman lives, I bet you do target it, and in the process keep that Libdem Hastrick in
I have said that the comment "calm down and take your HRT" is sexist it is I have suggested in context an appropriate response is "ooops thats a bit naughty" not flogging anyone a tipsiest bit of acknowledgement, and then move on, but you want to get all "you and your Labour spies" Do you really think Im have Labour spies or that if Labour had spies it would waste them on you. Is it because I have rumbled your target seat as being the Meriden, simple logic I am afraid thats where you tried last time and where your charman lives, I bet you do target it, and in the process keep that Libdem Hastrick in dontknowynot
  • Score: 0

2:40pm Tue 4 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

EU_OUT_NOW wrote:
dontknowynot says...

I do find that the anti PC line is wearing a bit thin, the line that paraphrase "calm down dear take your HRT" is offensive, you maintain your right to be offensive, fine keep saying it and never say sorry, it is I suppose your right...............

.........

Listen sweetie, you are targeting the wrong people. I made this comment, it was a joke targeted at YOU specifically. A bit like your joke about cutting off body parts, your head? The overuse of Misogynistic (I gather you mean "dislike women") is nonsense. I love women! They are the most wonderful creature God ever created. I will never understand the way they think, hence I have three ex wives, but hey, I keep trying! Do I intend to apologise? certainly not.. I have watched you spit venom and insults on here week after week at everyone and everything, rather like a hungry parasite with OCD. Get over it, you dish it out, expect it back! If it offends your female sensitivities, then serve you right for hiding behind a pseudonym
you have three ex wives, gosh I wonder why
[quote][p][bold]EU_OUT_NOW[/bold] wrote: dontknowynot says... I do find that the anti PC line is wearing a bit thin, the line that paraphrase "calm down dear take your HRT" is offensive, you maintain your right to be offensive, fine keep saying it and never say sorry, it is I suppose your right............... ......... Listen sweetie, you are targeting the wrong people. I made this comment, it was a joke targeted at YOU specifically. A bit like your joke about cutting off body parts, your head? The overuse of Misogynistic (I gather you mean "dislike women") is nonsense. I love women! They are the most wonderful creature God ever created. I will never understand the way they think, hence I have three ex wives, but hey, I keep trying! Do I intend to apologise? certainly not.. I have watched you spit venom and insults on here week after week at everyone and everything, rather like a hungry parasite with OCD. Get over it, you dish it out, expect it back! If it offends your female sensitivities, then serve you right for hiding behind a pseudonym[/p][/quote]you have three ex wives, gosh I wonder why dontknowynot
  • Score: -1

2:46pm Tue 4 Feb 14

EU_OUT_NOW says...

dontknowynot says...

"you have three ex wives, gosh I wonder why"....... Golly gosh..):))::)...... Why do you think? because I am an utter pain in the arse like you!
dontknowynot says... "you have three ex wives, gosh I wonder why"....... Golly gosh..):))::)...... Why do you think? because I am an utter pain in the arse like you! EU_OUT_NOW
  • Score: 1

2:47pm Tue 4 Feb 14

garston tony says...

LSC wrote:
D_Penn wrote: Half the problem with so many of today's politicians that they are so unapproachable and detached from the hoi polloi. Online, all us involved in politics should use our own name so that when people meet you they can associate you with the views you make online and challenge them if they wish. If you believe in what you say then you shouldn't be frightened to debate openly with others. There is another point as well. If you don't post under your own name there have been examples where somebody else registers as you, pretends to be you, and then posts rubbish in order to damage you. If you are already posting under your own name it makes that dirty trick very unlikely to work.
I was tracked down, on an unrelated issue, via this site and someone contacted my boss with a view to getting me fired. I take that rather seriously. So yes, I do not post personal opinions under my own name. I would if personal opinions were my business though.
I'm still shocked that people would do that LSC, its utterly disgusting and out of order. Is that even legal? It shouldnt be.
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: Half the problem with so many of today's politicians that they are so unapproachable and detached from the hoi polloi. Online, all us involved in politics should use our own name so that when people meet you they can associate you with the views you make online and challenge them if they wish. If you believe in what you say then you shouldn't be frightened to debate openly with others. There is another point as well. If you don't post under your own name there have been examples where somebody else registers as you, pretends to be you, and then posts rubbish in order to damage you. If you are already posting under your own name it makes that dirty trick very unlikely to work.[/p][/quote]I was tracked down, on an unrelated issue, via this site and someone contacted my boss with a view to getting me fired. I take that rather seriously. So yes, I do not post personal opinions under my own name. I would if personal opinions were my business though.[/p][/quote]I'm still shocked that people would do that LSC, its utterly disgusting and out of order. Is that even legal? It shouldnt be. garston tony
  • Score: 1

2:48pm Tue 4 Feb 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

dontknowynot wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
???

You said we had an all-male local committee.

I pointed out that was untrue and in fact one of the women on our local committee is ex-Labour.

Now you say I have offended people with that response. Local Labour party committee maybe, but not anyone else I suspect.

Logic? There is none.

I also love your line re Farm Terrace. " but will admit that in broad terms your policy on Farm Terrace allotments is a good one, although I have differed on your perspective on aspects of it."

We are unequivocal. We will do our utmost to reverse current decisions and save Farm Terrace allotments.

What would you do differently? Just save a bit of it? Or is it just more Labour posturing?

No wonder people are getting fed up of the games played by the other parties and moving to the straight-talking Ukip.
clearly then it might be an idea to update your website then, and maybe list all the members that way people wouldn't be under the mistaken (yet logical and entirely understandable misconception that you have an all male committee
http://www.ukip-watf

ord.org.uk/the-commi

ttee.htm

Just saying
Fair comment, our committee listing is not complete.

Some committee members do not want any publicity and so are not on the web page.
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: ??? You said we had an all-male local committee. I pointed out that was untrue and in fact one of the women on our local committee is ex-Labour. Now you say I have offended people with that response. Local Labour party committee maybe, but not anyone else I suspect. Logic? There is none. I also love your line re Farm Terrace. " but will admit that in broad terms your policy on Farm Terrace allotments is a good one, although I have differed on your perspective on aspects of it." We are unequivocal. We will do our utmost to reverse current decisions and save Farm Terrace allotments. What would you do differently? Just save a bit of it? Or is it just more Labour posturing? No wonder people are getting fed up of the games played by the other parties and moving to the straight-talking Ukip.[/p][/quote]clearly then it might be an idea to update your website then, and maybe list all the members that way people wouldn't be under the mistaken (yet logical and entirely understandable misconception that you have an all male committee http://www.ukip-watf ord.org.uk/the-commi ttee.htm Just saying[/p][/quote]Fair comment, our committee listing is not complete. Some committee members do not want any publicity and so are not on the web page. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: 0

3:00pm Tue 4 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
???

You said we had an all-male local committee.

I pointed out that was untrue and in fact one of the women on our local committee is ex-Labour.

Now you say I have offended people with that response. Local Labour party committee maybe, but not anyone else I suspect.

Logic? There is none.

I also love your line re Farm Terrace. " but will admit that in broad terms your policy on Farm Terrace allotments is a good one, although I have differed on your perspective on aspects of it."

We are unequivocal. We will do our utmost to reverse current decisions and save Farm Terrace allotments.

What would you do differently? Just save a bit of it? Or is it just more Labour posturing?

No wonder people are getting fed up of the games played by the other parties and moving to the straight-talking Ukip.
clearly then it might be an idea to update your website then, and maybe list all the members that way people wouldn't be under the mistaken (yet logical and entirely understandable misconception that you have an all male committee
http://www.ukip-watf


ord.org.uk/the-commi


ttee.htm

Just saying
Fair comment, our committee listing is not complete.

Some committee members do not want any publicity and so are not on the web page.
Oh dear I dropped B'k there no doubt your UKIP spies are tracking down who I am from my visit to your webpage and confirming that it is not Anne Joynes as a type
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: ??? You said we had an all-male local committee. I pointed out that was untrue and in fact one of the women on our local committee is ex-Labour. Now you say I have offended people with that response. Local Labour party committee maybe, but not anyone else I suspect. Logic? There is none. I also love your line re Farm Terrace. " but will admit that in broad terms your policy on Farm Terrace allotments is a good one, although I have differed on your perspective on aspects of it." We are unequivocal. We will do our utmost to reverse current decisions and save Farm Terrace allotments. What would you do differently? Just save a bit of it? Or is it just more Labour posturing? No wonder people are getting fed up of the games played by the other parties and moving to the straight-talking Ukip.[/p][/quote]clearly then it might be an idea to update your website then, and maybe list all the members that way people wouldn't be under the mistaken (yet logical and entirely understandable misconception that you have an all male committee http://www.ukip-watf ord.org.uk/the-commi ttee.htm Just saying[/p][/quote]Fair comment, our committee listing is not complete. Some committee members do not want any publicity and so are not on the web page.[/p][/quote]Oh dear I dropped B'k there no doubt your UKIP spies are tracking down who I am from my visit to your webpage and confirming that it is not Anne Joynes as a type dontknowynot
  • Score: 0

3:04pm Tue 4 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

The difference I had with you on Farm Terrace was in your initial apprasel of Eric Pickles, you came round to my way of thinking If I remember rightly
The difference I had with you on Farm Terrace was in your initial apprasel of Eric Pickles, you came round to my way of thinking If I remember rightly dontknowynot
  • Score: 0

3:06pm Tue 4 Feb 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

dontknowynot wrote:
The difference I had with you on Farm Terrace was in your initial apprasel of Eric Pickles, you came round to my way of thinking If I remember rightly
You do not remember rightly.
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: The difference I had with you on Farm Terrace was in your initial apprasel of Eric Pickles, you came round to my way of thinking If I remember rightly[/p][/quote]You do not remember rightly. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: 0

3:41pm Tue 4 Feb 14

D_Penn says...

@dontknowynot

You said: "Oh dear I dropped B'k there no doubt your UKIP spies are tracking down who I am from my visit to your webpage and confirming that it is not Anne Joynes as a type"

I'm sorry, but you are overestimating your level of importance. I do not care who your are (although I did wonder if you were perhaps one of EU_OUT_NOW's ex-wives - joke).

My offer to meet you is however, a genuine one. In life, we frequently learn more from the people we disagree with than those whose opinions we share.

In my past I spent three years working closely with both a communist and a right-wing tory, whilst I occupied the middle ground. They were both politically exceptionally astute and very clever people. As a result, I learned a great deal from debating with them. It's from such meetings that we develop greater understanding.

You do have a very outdated view of UKIP which you could easily update. The party has evolved rapidly in just a few years and the huge influx of people from many backgrounds and from different parts of the political spectrum has given the party a very strong base. Where the old parties are still entrenched into the pro-worker/pro-rich stances, UKIP do not side with either. Thus we can attack unions or businessmen whenever we think either are wrong. We do not have to keep one eye over our shoulder to see what our paymasters think before forming a view or policy. This flexibility matches what the public have seen is missing from the old parties and that they have been crying out for.

Earlier you picked up on the point that Nigel Farage has publically dumped the 2010 manifesto. That is because UKIP is vastly more professional now and know we offer better policies in our next manifesto. You see, unlike other parties who are terrified of bad publicity we are a party who are open enough to deal with issues in public that others would try to hide in fear of electoral backlash. Rapid changes are inevitable because we have had a flood of very professional people entering UKIP and that has improved the quality of the party enormously. Phil Cox is just one such an example and will make an excellent Mayor for Watford if elected.

As you said, I don't know if I might have met you, but ynot (poor pun) make the effort to openly meet, even if you want to keep your online profile secure. It won't change your political views but it may well make you have a rethink about what sort of people make up UKIP today and we may learn something from you.
@dontknowynot You said: "Oh dear I dropped B'k there no doubt your UKIP spies are tracking down who I am from my visit to your webpage and confirming that it is not Anne Joynes as a type" I'm sorry, but you are overestimating your level of importance. I do not care who your are (although I did wonder if you were perhaps one of EU_OUT_NOW's ex-wives - joke). My offer to meet you is however, a genuine one. In life, we frequently learn more from the people we disagree with than those whose opinions we share. In my past I spent three years working closely with both a communist and a right-wing tory, whilst I occupied the middle ground. They were both politically exceptionally astute and very clever people. As a result, I learned a great deal from debating with them. It's from such meetings that we develop greater understanding. You do have a very outdated view of UKIP which you could easily update. The party has evolved rapidly in just a few years and the huge influx of people from many backgrounds and from different parts of the political spectrum has given the party a very strong base. Where the old parties are still entrenched into the pro-worker/pro-rich stances, UKIP do not side with either. Thus we can attack unions or businessmen whenever we think either are wrong. We do not have to keep one eye over our shoulder to see what our paymasters think before forming a view or policy. This flexibility matches what the public have seen is missing from the old parties and that they have been crying out for. Earlier you picked up on the point that Nigel Farage has publically dumped the 2010 manifesto. That is because UKIP is vastly more professional now and know we offer better policies in our next manifesto. You see, unlike other parties who are terrified of bad publicity we are a party who are open enough to deal with issues in public that others would try to hide in fear of electoral backlash. Rapid changes are inevitable because we have had a flood of very professional people entering UKIP and that has improved the quality of the party enormously. Phil Cox is just one such an example and will make an excellent Mayor for Watford if elected. As you said, I don't know if I might have met you, but ynot (poor pun) make the effort to openly meet, even if you want to keep your online profile secure. It won't change your political views but it may well make you have a rethink about what sort of people make up UKIP today and we may learn something from you. D_Penn
  • Score: 1

4:04pm Tue 4 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
The difference I had with you on Farm Terrace was in your initial apprasel of Eric Pickles, you came round to my way of thinking If I remember rightly
You do not remember rightly.
At 3:03pm Fri 31 Jan 14 you wrote reffering to libdem:-
Just as their national party is unravelling, so are their actions in Watford also unravelling as regards the "Health Campus" which is apparently devoid of health but full of housing. I doubt Pickles would have signed off the destruction of protected allotments for housing.

I pointed out that this is exactly what he has done on two occasions and after an exchange with you and your supporters you moved on
“As for Pickles, he got it completely wrong on Farm Terrace. No ifs, no buts, he got it wrong for Watford”
Which although not contra to your first statement is a far stronger condemnation and a movement in your initial statement.
Now this moves me on to another point I accept that my views are of the left are tio the left of centre are to the left of New Labour nd to the left of the likes of Progress that is I am Left wing.
When I look at your party and its policys they are right wing that is right of centre why can’t you admit that?
DP says you have moved on away from a right wing position I will look for signs of it, but to date from my observations I would still say that your party is right wing and there may be some merit in admitting it.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: The difference I had with you on Farm Terrace was in your initial apprasel of Eric Pickles, you came round to my way of thinking If I remember rightly[/p][/quote]You do not remember rightly.[/p][/quote]At 3:03pm Fri 31 Jan 14 you wrote reffering to libdem:- Just as their national party is unravelling, so are their actions in Watford also unravelling as regards the "Health Campus" which is apparently devoid of health but full of housing. I doubt Pickles would have signed off the destruction of protected allotments for housing. I pointed out that this is exactly what he has done on two occasions and after an exchange with you and your supporters you moved on “As for Pickles, he got it completely wrong on Farm Terrace. No ifs, no buts, he got it wrong for Watford” Which although not contra to your first statement is a far stronger condemnation and a movement in your initial statement. Now this moves me on to another point I accept that my views are of the left are tio the left of centre are to the left of New Labour nd to the left of the likes of Progress that is I am Left wing. When I look at your party and its policys they are right wing that is right of centre why can’t you admit that? DP says you have moved on away from a right wing position I will look for signs of it, but to date from my observations I would still say that your party is right wing and there may be some merit in admitting it. dontknowynot
  • Score: 0

4:18pm Tue 4 Feb 14

D_Penn says...

LSC wrote:
EU_OUT_NOW wrote: D_Penn says... "Worse, when did the world become so childish that giving offence now can result in people losing their jobs - or even be threatened with imprisonment - for the mildest remarks - particularly where race or gender is involved?" When the EU and the Politically Correct idiots took control of the UK. Time to leave the EU? Vote UKIP
While I broadly agree, take a look at the story up the page about the Bushey Councillor. Some people, in some jobs, should not be offensive. I don't mind people on here insulting me, it happens all the time. But I would worry if a policeman on duty or prime minister did it, like Gordon Brown that time when he called that lady a bigot for having an opinion different to his own. That wasn't sticks and stones, that was an insight into the contempt our politicians hold us in, and is, quite rightly, offensive.
I agree. Deliberate offensive insults have no place in a professional setting.

That is particularly true in professions where you have to be clearly unbiased. For example, if you were a judge and said you hated fat people then it makes your perceived neutrality untenable when faced with an overweight defendent. That sort of generalised attack on a whole group in this context would have to put your job on the line.

There is, of course, a big differnce between having a bias against a group and having a dig at an individual. In professional circles, the latter can often happen when someone has been really wound up and unwisely loses their rag. In that case an apology is appropriate and, unless the insult was exceptionally over the top, should be the end of it.
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]EU_OUT_NOW[/bold] wrote: D_Penn says... "Worse, when did the world become so childish that giving offence now can result in people losing their jobs - or even be threatened with imprisonment - for the mildest remarks - particularly where race or gender is involved?" When the EU and the Politically Correct idiots took control of the UK. Time to leave the EU? Vote UKIP[/p][/quote]While I broadly agree, take a look at the story up the page about the Bushey Councillor. Some people, in some jobs, should not be offensive. I don't mind people on here insulting me, it happens all the time. But I would worry if a policeman on duty or prime minister did it, like Gordon Brown that time when he called that lady a bigot for having an opinion different to his own. That wasn't sticks and stones, that was an insight into the contempt our politicians hold us in, and is, quite rightly, offensive.[/p][/quote]I agree. Deliberate offensive insults have no place in a professional setting. That is particularly true in professions where you have to be clearly unbiased. For example, if you were a judge and said you hated fat people then it makes your perceived neutrality untenable when faced with an overweight defendent. That sort of generalised attack on a whole group in this context would have to put your job on the line. There is, of course, a big differnce between having a bias against a group and having a dig at an individual. In professional circles, the latter can often happen when someone has been really wound up and unwisely loses their rag. In that case an apology is appropriate and, unless the insult was exceptionally over the top, should be the end of it. D_Penn
  • Score: 0

5:08pm Tue 4 Feb 14

D_Penn says...

@dontknowynot

You said: "When I look at your party and its policys they are right wing that is right of centre why can’t you admit that? DP says you have moved on away from a right wing position I will look for signs of it, but to date from my observations I would still say that your party is right wing and there may be some merit in admitting it."

Certainly UKIP have some policies that overlap with what a right wing party would have, but we are not a party for the rich or large business.

We are also a party that cares very much for the welfare of ordinary people of Britain, the majority of whom are not well off, but we are not a party of the unions.

In fact, we are a party that sees our job as being a bit like the referee in a football match. Our job is to make the country work well for the benefit of all without being biased towards one side or the other. That is why we dislike the left/right term because it suggests an ideological position; but we are pragmatists. If it required a socialist style policy to solve a problem, UKIP would use it whereas a right winger would never touch it on principle.

So our advantage is that we can be trusted by both sides across the old divides because we have no history of bias, cheating and betrayal and importantly, we are not funded by unions or the rich which would open us up to being controlled by those with hidden agendas.

It does leave us poor as a party though. We have to rely heavily on donations from ordinary people across Britain, but do you know what? I wouldn't want it any other way because if gives us freedom to say what we think without having to worry about potential financial consequences.

One interesting story for you might be interested to hear is the conversation I had with a UKIP member at our conference last year. He was a staunch ex-union man. For many years he sat at top tables in negotiations with successive governments - he was a real hard hitter and had been fiercly Labour.

I asked him if he was still a socialist to which he responded, 'Aye' (a straight talking northerner of course.). So I asked him what made him come across to UKIP. He said, "I've seen it all and watched it all change. Now yer can't trust any of the b******s at the top. They're all in it for themselves.". "So why UKIP?", I asked. He replied that it's where all the good ones had gone who had been forced out by the careerists. "Those at the top of Labour, all rich now." he moaned. I asked him then about whether UKIP didn't feel a bit right wing for him (I thought anyone would seem right wing from his point of view!). He said no, that the approach he saw was far more rounded than that plus he wanted us out of the EU which he saw as a job destroyer that will ultimately hit British workers. Interestingly, he also said that up in the North, his local UKIP party was full of ex-Labour people, so he felt quite at home!

I must admit that I felt a bit sorry for him because it must have been a real pull to leave Labour, a party he had been an activist in for a lifetime. I wish I could remember his name because I'm sure he had been enough in the media in the past for you to know of him.

Anyway, it explains why in UKIP we do not see ourselves as a party of the left, right - or centre for that matter. We are much broader than those old-style and narrow definitions.
@dontknowynot You said: "When I look at your party and its policys they are right wing that is right of centre why can’t you admit that? DP says you have moved on away from a right wing position I will look for signs of it, but to date from my observations I would still say that your party is right wing and there may be some merit in admitting it." Certainly UKIP have some policies that overlap with what a right wing party would have, but we are not a party for the rich or large business. We are also a party that cares very much for the welfare of ordinary people of Britain, the majority of whom are not well off, but we are not a party of the unions. In fact, we are a party that sees our job as being a bit like the referee in a football match. Our job is to make the country work well for the benefit of all without being biased towards one side or the other. That is why we dislike the left/right term because it suggests an ideological position; but we are pragmatists. If it required a socialist style policy to solve a problem, UKIP would use it whereas a right winger would never touch it on principle. So our advantage is that we can be trusted by both sides across the old divides because we have no history of bias, cheating and betrayal and importantly, we are not funded by unions or the rich which would open us up to being controlled by those with hidden agendas. It does leave us poor as a party though. We have to rely heavily on donations from ordinary people across Britain, but do you know what? I wouldn't want it any other way because if gives us freedom to say what we think without having to worry about potential financial consequences. One interesting story for you might be interested to hear is the conversation I had with a UKIP member at our conference last year. He was a staunch ex-union man. For many years he sat at top tables in negotiations with successive governments - he was a real hard hitter and had been fiercly Labour. I asked him if he was still a socialist to which he responded, 'Aye' (a straight talking northerner of course.). So I asked him what made him come across to UKIP. He said, "I've seen it all and watched it all change. Now yer can't trust any of the b******s at the top. They're all in it for themselves.". "So why UKIP?", I asked. He replied that it's where all the good ones had gone who had been forced out by the careerists. "Those at the top of Labour, all rich now." he moaned. I asked him then about whether UKIP didn't feel a bit right wing for him (I thought anyone would seem right wing from his point of view!). He said no, that the approach he saw was far more rounded than that plus he wanted us out of the EU which he saw as a job destroyer that will ultimately hit British workers. Interestingly, he also said that up in the North, his local UKIP party was full of ex-Labour people, so he felt quite at home! I must admit that I felt a bit sorry for him because it must have been a real pull to leave Labour, a party he had been an activist in for a lifetime. I wish I could remember his name because I'm sure he had been enough in the media in the past for you to know of him. Anyway, it explains why in UKIP we do not see ourselves as a party of the left, right - or centre for that matter. We are much broader than those old-style and narrow definitions. D_Penn
  • Score: 0

6:40pm Tue 4 Feb 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

dontknowynot wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
The difference I had with you on Farm Terrace was in your initial apprasel of Eric Pickles, you came round to my way of thinking If I remember rightly
You do not remember rightly.
At 3:03pm Fri 31 Jan 14 you wrote reffering to libdem:-
Just as their national party is unravelling, so are their actions in Watford also unravelling as regards the "Health Campus" which is apparently devoid of health but full of housing. I doubt Pickles would have signed off the destruction of protected allotments for housing.

I pointed out that this is exactly what he has done on two occasions and after an exchange with you and your supporters you moved on
“As for Pickles, he got it completely wrong on Farm Terrace. No ifs, no buts, he got it wrong for Watford”
Which although not contra to your first statement is a far stronger condemnation and a movement in your initial statement.
Now this moves me on to another point I accept that my views are of the left are tio the left of centre are to the left of New Labour nd to the left of the likes of Progress that is I am Left wing.
When I look at your party and its policys they are right wing that is right of centre why can’t you admit that?
DP says you have moved on away from a right wing position I will look for signs of it, but to date from my observations I would still say that your party is right wing and there may be some merit in admitting it.
Labels like right and left are appropriate for some parties.

I don't think these labels are descriptive of Ukip.

You might be better amending your sentence to, and this is a direct partial quote from you...

"When I look at your party and its policys they are right"

If you do, I will agree with you.
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: The difference I had with you on Farm Terrace was in your initial apprasel of Eric Pickles, you came round to my way of thinking If I remember rightly[/p][/quote]You do not remember rightly.[/p][/quote]At 3:03pm Fri 31 Jan 14 you wrote reffering to libdem:- Just as their national party is unravelling, so are their actions in Watford also unravelling as regards the "Health Campus" which is apparently devoid of health but full of housing. I doubt Pickles would have signed off the destruction of protected allotments for housing. I pointed out that this is exactly what he has done on two occasions and after an exchange with you and your supporters you moved on “As for Pickles, he got it completely wrong on Farm Terrace. No ifs, no buts, he got it wrong for Watford” Which although not contra to your first statement is a far stronger condemnation and a movement in your initial statement. Now this moves me on to another point I accept that my views are of the left are tio the left of centre are to the left of New Labour nd to the left of the likes of Progress that is I am Left wing. When I look at your party and its policys they are right wing that is right of centre why can’t you admit that? DP says you have moved on away from a right wing position I will look for signs of it, but to date from my observations I would still say that your party is right wing and there may be some merit in admitting it.[/p][/quote]Labels like right and left are appropriate for some parties. I don't think these labels are descriptive of Ukip. You might be better amending your sentence to, and this is a direct partial quote from you... "When I look at your party and its policys they are right" If you do, I will agree with you. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: 0

6:55pm Tue 4 Feb 14

LSC says...

garston tony wrote:
LSC wrote:
D_Penn wrote: Half the problem with so many of today's politicians that they are so unapproachable and detached from the hoi polloi. Online, all us involved in politics should use our own name so that when people meet you they can associate you with the views you make online and challenge them if they wish. If you believe in what you say then you shouldn't be frightened to debate openly with others. There is another point as well. If you don't post under your own name there have been examples where somebody else registers as you, pretends to be you, and then posts rubbish in order to damage you. If you are already posting under your own name it makes that dirty trick very unlikely to work.
I was tracked down, on an unrelated issue, via this site and someone contacted my boss with a view to getting me fired. I take that rather seriously. So yes, I do not post personal opinions under my own name. I would if personal opinions were my business though.
I'm still shocked that people would do that LSC, its utterly disgusting and out of order. Is that even legal? It shouldnt be.
I think the law was broken regarding slander and possibly the Data Protection Act. But I cannot deny what they quoted was what I had written, albeit in private e-mails, taken out of context or edited to suit a purpose.
They were still my words, and I stand by them.
Luckily my employers aren't stupid, and although they took the matter seriously, they saw it for what it was.
An effort to keep me quiet, and I was for a while.
But there comes a time in life when you have to stand up for what you believe, and will not be bullied.
I will not be bullied.
I know you and I clash a lot, but you have never questioned my right to an opinion, even though we are polar opposites in some areas.
But that is how things are here, as the other story illustrates quite well.
I'm not fighting sprirtuality or belief systems. I'm fighting selfishness, bullying and borderline corruption.
Most people would be with me in that.
[quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: Half the problem with so many of today's politicians that they are so unapproachable and detached from the hoi polloi. Online, all us involved in politics should use our own name so that when people meet you they can associate you with the views you make online and challenge them if they wish. If you believe in what you say then you shouldn't be frightened to debate openly with others. There is another point as well. If you don't post under your own name there have been examples where somebody else registers as you, pretends to be you, and then posts rubbish in order to damage you. If you are already posting under your own name it makes that dirty trick very unlikely to work.[/p][/quote]I was tracked down, on an unrelated issue, via this site and someone contacted my boss with a view to getting me fired. I take that rather seriously. So yes, I do not post personal opinions under my own name. I would if personal opinions were my business though.[/p][/quote]I'm still shocked that people would do that LSC, its utterly disgusting and out of order. Is that even legal? It shouldnt be.[/p][/quote]I think the law was broken regarding slander and possibly the Data Protection Act. But I cannot deny what they quoted was what I had written, albeit in private e-mails, taken out of context or edited to suit a purpose. They were still my words, and I stand by them. Luckily my employers aren't stupid, and although they took the matter seriously, they saw it for what it was. An effort to keep me quiet, and I was for a while. But there comes a time in life when you have to stand up for what you believe, and will not be bullied. I will not be bullied. I know you and I clash a lot, but you have never questioned my right to an opinion, even though we are polar opposites in some areas. But that is how things are here, as the other story illustrates quite well. I'm not fighting sprirtuality or belief systems. I'm fighting selfishness, bullying and borderline corruption. Most people would be with me in that. LSC
  • Score: 6

1:06am Wed 5 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

http://www.huffingto
npost.co.uk/2014/02/
04/gerard-batten-mus
lims-ukip-charter_n_
4726200.html
Oh well apart from the continues influx of Torys into your non Tory party it looks like another one of your MEPs is being controversial
http://www.huffingto
npost.co.uk/2014/02/
04/gerard-batten-mus
lims-ukip-charter_n_
4726200.html

So Phil Cox and fellow UKIPers do you support his stance on Muslims having to sign a special declaration and his view that half the Mosques are run by extremists.
Locally do you view either of the Mosques in Watford as being run by extremists and if so what are you going to do about them?
http://www.huffingto npost.co.uk/2014/02/ 04/gerard-batten-mus lims-ukip-charter_n_ 4726200.html Oh well apart from the continues influx of Torys into your non Tory party it looks like another one of your MEPs is being controversial http://www.huffingto npost.co.uk/2014/02/ 04/gerard-batten-mus lims-ukip-charter_n_ 4726200.html So Phil Cox and fellow UKIPers do you support his stance on Muslims having to sign a special declaration and his view that half the Mosques are run by extremists. Locally do you view either of the Mosques in Watford as being run by extremists and if so what are you going to do about them? dontknowynot
  • Score: -2

8:30am Wed 5 Feb 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

It's his personal view, not mine.

I have only read what I have read in the Guardian article. From what I have read I disagree with him on this. Unlike other parties, we are allowed to have our own opinions in UKIP.

Watford is a great town with great people. I'm going to do nothing because nothing needs to be done.

Please do not try to stir up racial or religious hatred. Watford is a great town to live in - for everyone.
It's his personal view, not mine. I have only read what I have read in the Guardian article. From what I have read I disagree with him on this. Unlike other parties, we are allowed to have our own opinions in UKIP. Watford is a great town with great people. I'm going to do nothing because nothing needs to be done. Please do not try to stir up racial or religious hatred. Watford is a great town to live in - for everyone. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 3

9:28am Wed 5 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

This is the deputy leader of your party no?
Never mind I hope you or your delegate vigorously input an inclusive message into your party's spring conference, It is not I that stir up disharmony but the likes of this guy.
@Brian you may want to "think on" about your attacks on Asif Khan in context they look increasingly shrill and do your party no favors
This is the deputy leader of your party no? Never mind I hope you or your delegate vigorously input an inclusive message into your party's spring conference, It is not I that stir up disharmony but the likes of this guy. @Brian you may want to "think on" about your attacks on Asif Khan in context they look increasingly shrill and do your party no favors dontknowynot
  • Score: -3

9:56am Wed 5 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

dontknowynot wrote:
This is the deputy leader of your party no?
Never mind I hope you or your delegate vigorously input an inclusive message into your party's spring conference, It is not I that stir up disharmony but the likes of this guy.
@Brian you may want to "think on" about your attacks on Asif Khan in context they look increasingly shrill and do your party no favors
sorry deputy is someone else but this guy is an MEP and on the executive so is much more than just a guy, is a voice for the party.
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: This is the deputy leader of your party no? Never mind I hope you or your delegate vigorously input an inclusive message into your party's spring conference, It is not I that stir up disharmony but the likes of this guy. @Brian you may want to "think on" about your attacks on Asif Khan in context they look increasingly shrill and do your party no favors[/p][/quote]sorry deputy is someone else but this guy is an MEP and on the executive so is much more than just a guy, is a voice for the party. dontknowynot
  • Score: -4

10:41am Wed 5 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

dontknowynot wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
This is the deputy leader of your party no?
Never mind I hope you or your delegate vigorously input an inclusive message into your party's spring conference, It is not I that stir up disharmony but the likes of this guy.
@Brian you may want to "think on" about your attacks on Asif Khan in context they look increasingly shrill and do your party no favors
sorry deputy is someone else but this guy is an MEP and on the executive so is much more than just a guy, is a voice for the party.
but then again I think he is deputy leader of UKIP in Euro party
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: This is the deputy leader of your party no? Never mind I hope you or your delegate vigorously input an inclusive message into your party's spring conference, It is not I that stir up disharmony but the likes of this guy. @Brian you may want to "think on" about your attacks on Asif Khan in context they look increasingly shrill and do your party no favors[/p][/quote]sorry deputy is someone else but this guy is an MEP and on the executive so is much more than just a guy, is a voice for the party.[/p][/quote]but then again I think he is deputy leader of UKIP in Euro party dontknowynot
  • Score: -4

11:49am Wed 5 Feb 14

BrianUKIP says...

dontknowynot wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
This is the deputy leader of your party no?
Never mind I hope you or your delegate vigorously input an inclusive message into your party's spring conference, It is not I that stir up disharmony but the likes of this guy.
@Brian you may want to "think on" about your attacks on Asif Khan in context they look increasingly shrill and do your party no favors
sorry deputy is someone else but this guy is an MEP and on the executive so is much more than just a guy, is a voice for the party.
dontknowynot I have pointed out that he was a member of Hizb-ut-Tahrir until 2008/2011 not much of a gap between an extremist group and being elected a Labour Councillor in 2011.

I condemn anyone with extremist views be they BNP or Hizb-ut-Tahrir. My point is he expressed extreme views on every subject under the sun from homosexuality to marriage outside of religion to the labour party having brought nothing but misery to the Muslim community.

Which of his views has he renounced? And were the Labour party aware of his past when selecting him as a candidate?
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: This is the deputy leader of your party no? Never mind I hope you or your delegate vigorously input an inclusive message into your party's spring conference, It is not I that stir up disharmony but the likes of this guy. @Brian you may want to "think on" about your attacks on Asif Khan in context they look increasingly shrill and do your party no favors[/p][/quote]sorry deputy is someone else but this guy is an MEP and on the executive so is much more than just a guy, is a voice for the party.[/p][/quote]dontknowynot I have pointed out that he was a member of Hizb-ut-Tahrir until 2008/2011 not much of a gap between an extremist group and being elected a Labour Councillor in 2011. I condemn anyone with extremist views be they BNP or Hizb-ut-Tahrir. My point is he expressed extreme views on every subject under the sun from homosexuality to marriage outside of religion to the labour party having brought nothing but misery to the Muslim community. Which of his views has he renounced? And were the Labour party aware of his past when selecting him as a candidate? BrianUKIP
  • Score: 7

12:00pm Wed 5 Feb 14

Tony Noeu says...

Brian I agree with you 100%. The Labour Party and Khan have some answering to do. We cant have someone having disgusting extremist views that encourage and advocate killing people and chopping off their hands one minute and then popping up as a labour councillor the next minute (fishy if you ask me).

I condemn all extremists like you Brian, be they BNP or Hizb-ut-Tahrir.

Perhaps that Anne Joynes woman should have a read of this.

http://blogs.telegra
ph.co.uk/news/timwig
more/100254439/why-l
abour-should-be-terr
ified-of-ukip-2/

Labour have deserted the classes that Tony Blair worked so hard to attract and have also deserted ordinary working class people.

Vote for common sense, vote UKIP and not Labour !!!
Brian I agree with you 100%. The Labour Party and Khan have some answering to do. We cant have someone having disgusting extremist views that encourage and advocate killing people and chopping off their hands one minute and then popping up as a labour councillor the next minute (fishy if you ask me). I condemn all extremists like you Brian, be they BNP or Hizb-ut-Tahrir. Perhaps that Anne Joynes woman should have a read of this. http://blogs.telegra ph.co.uk/news/timwig more/100254439/why-l abour-should-be-terr ified-of-ukip-2/ Labour have deserted the classes that Tony Blair worked so hard to attract and have also deserted ordinary working class people. Vote for common sense, vote UKIP and not Labour !!! Tony Noeu
  • Score: 6

1:06pm Wed 5 Feb 14

garston tony says...

LSC wrote:
garston tony wrote:
LSC wrote:
D_Penn wrote: Half the problem with so many of today's politicians that they are so unapproachable and detached from the hoi polloi. Online, all us involved in politics should use our own name so that when people meet you they can associate you with the views you make online and challenge them if they wish. If you believe in what you say then you shouldn't be frightened to debate openly with others. There is another point as well. If you don't post under your own name there have been examples where somebody else registers as you, pretends to be you, and then posts rubbish in order to damage you. If you are already posting under your own name it makes that dirty trick very unlikely to work.
I was tracked down, on an unrelated issue, via this site and someone contacted my boss with a view to getting me fired. I take that rather seriously. So yes, I do not post personal opinions under my own name. I would if personal opinions were my business though.
I'm still shocked that people would do that LSC, its utterly disgusting and out of order. Is that even legal? It shouldnt be.
I think the law was broken regarding slander and possibly the Data Protection Act. But I cannot deny what they quoted was what I had written, albeit in private e-mails, taken out of context or edited to suit a purpose. They were still my words, and I stand by them. Luckily my employers aren't stupid, and although they took the matter seriously, they saw it for what it was. An effort to keep me quiet, and I was for a while. But there comes a time in life when you have to stand up for what you believe, and will not be bullied. I will not be bullied. I know you and I clash a lot, but you have never questioned my right to an opinion, even though we are polar opposites in some areas. But that is how things are here, as the other story illustrates quite well. I'm not fighting sprirtuality or belief systems. I'm fighting selfishness, bullying and borderline corruption. Most people would be with me in that.
I'm glad you have good employers and they didnt entertain the scum that tried to cause trouble for you.

I might be wrong but I think on the matter that led to this trouble for you we might have been on opposite sides (law of averages if nothing else) so in effect my opinion would broadly speaking have been on the same side as those low lifes. I just want to make it clear that I in no way shape or form condone what they did, agree or disagree people are entitled to their opinions and to (within obvious reason) voice them.

It's likely that my position on whatever the subject was probably hasnt changed but whatever those people want they need to obtain it fairly through the democratic process. To try and silence someones opinion through blackmail and intimidation, to try and deny someone their democratic right let and try to get someone the sack is an all time low. The people involved truly disgust me.

I'm really interested in how they tracked you down, you have only every hinted over the years in the vaguest way at what you do which makes me believe that they did have to break laws in order to find out specifically who you were and where you worked. Have you considered taking that further with the authorities? Was there a breach at the WO itself, after all we have to give an email address in order to get an ID to be allowed to post.

If you'd rather not say I understand, i'll drop this unless you respond.
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: Half the problem with so many of today's politicians that they are so unapproachable and detached from the hoi polloi. Online, all us involved in politics should use our own name so that when people meet you they can associate you with the views you make online and challenge them if they wish. If you believe in what you say then you shouldn't be frightened to debate openly with others. There is another point as well. If you don't post under your own name there have been examples where somebody else registers as you, pretends to be you, and then posts rubbish in order to damage you. If you are already posting under your own name it makes that dirty trick very unlikely to work.[/p][/quote]I was tracked down, on an unrelated issue, via this site and someone contacted my boss with a view to getting me fired. I take that rather seriously. So yes, I do not post personal opinions under my own name. I would if personal opinions were my business though.[/p][/quote]I'm still shocked that people would do that LSC, its utterly disgusting and out of order. Is that even legal? It shouldnt be.[/p][/quote]I think the law was broken regarding slander and possibly the Data Protection Act. But I cannot deny what they quoted was what I had written, albeit in private e-mails, taken out of context or edited to suit a purpose. They were still my words, and I stand by them. Luckily my employers aren't stupid, and although they took the matter seriously, they saw it for what it was. An effort to keep me quiet, and I was for a while. But there comes a time in life when you have to stand up for what you believe, and will not be bullied. I will not be bullied. I know you and I clash a lot, but you have never questioned my right to an opinion, even though we are polar opposites in some areas. But that is how things are here, as the other story illustrates quite well. I'm not fighting sprirtuality or belief systems. I'm fighting selfishness, bullying and borderline corruption. Most people would be with me in that.[/p][/quote]I'm glad you have good employers and they didnt entertain the scum that tried to cause trouble for you. I might be wrong but I think on the matter that led to this trouble for you we might have been on opposite sides (law of averages if nothing else) so in effect my opinion would broadly speaking have been on the same side as those low lifes. I just want to make it clear that I in no way shape or form condone what they did, agree or disagree people are entitled to their opinions and to (within obvious reason) voice them. It's likely that my position on whatever the subject was probably hasnt changed but whatever those people want they need to obtain it fairly through the democratic process. To try and silence someones opinion through blackmail and intimidation, to try and deny someone their democratic right let and try to get someone the sack is an all time low. The people involved truly disgust me. I'm really interested in how they tracked you down, you have only every hinted over the years in the vaguest way at what you do which makes me believe that they did have to break laws in order to find out specifically who you were and where you worked. Have you considered taking that further with the authorities? Was there a breach at the WO itself, after all we have to give an email address in order to get an ID to be allowed to post. If you'd rather not say I understand, i'll drop this unless you respond. garston tony
  • Score: 0

2:13pm Wed 5 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

BrianUKIP wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
This is the deputy leader of your party no?
Never mind I hope you or your delegate vigorously input an inclusive message into your party's spring conference, It is not I that stir up disharmony but the likes of this guy.
@Brian you may want to "think on" about your attacks on Asif Khan in context they look increasingly shrill and do your party no favors
sorry deputy is someone else but this guy is an MEP and on the executive so is much more than just a guy, is a voice for the party.
dontknowynot I have pointed out that he was a member of Hizb-ut-Tahrir until 2008/2011 not much of a gap between an extremist group and being elected a Labour Councillor in 2011.

I condemn anyone with extremist views be they BNP or Hizb-ut-Tahrir. My point is he expressed extreme views on every subject under the sun from homosexuality to marriage outside of religion to the labour party having brought nothing but misery to the Muslim community.

Which of his views has he renounced? And were the Labour party aware of his past when selecting him as a candidate?
yer yer yer
Khan , Khan ,khan
is he standing for election this year? No!
So why are you going on about it, I fail to see, what is your problem here, what is the relevance?
I have sympathy for people who took up extremist republican views in the early seventies after Bloody Sunday not so much if thety continued to hold them in the 80's, not at all if they went round killing folks.
The same is true for Islamic extremists following the second gulf war
If Labour want to stand by a sinner who repented then good luck on them.
If you want to rant on about it carry on you are doing yourself or your party no favors especially within the context of the remarks, publications and views of your partys deputy leader of the Euro parliament group.
/Now that is an opinion you may not like it, but it has some reason to it, and although you and your circle of UKIP followers probably won't share it I do think that others will have a similar opinion and would find your comments to be shrill.
Others might detect some glee in your willingness to raise the subject (not necessarily your last post but others~) and the perception of many will be that you are using this not out of any real concern, but out of desire to bash Labour or to discredit Muslims.
I don't think there are Labour cllr up for election this year who are Muslim is that it ? You have to attack Khan because there are no Labour Muslim cllrs up for reelection this year?
[quote][p][bold]BrianUKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: This is the deputy leader of your party no? Never mind I hope you or your delegate vigorously input an inclusive message into your party's spring conference, It is not I that stir up disharmony but the likes of this guy. @Brian you may want to "think on" about your attacks on Asif Khan in context they look increasingly shrill and do your party no favors[/p][/quote]sorry deputy is someone else but this guy is an MEP and on the executive so is much more than just a guy, is a voice for the party.[/p][/quote]dontknowynot I have pointed out that he was a member of Hizb-ut-Tahrir until 2008/2011 not much of a gap between an extremist group and being elected a Labour Councillor in 2011. I condemn anyone with extremist views be they BNP or Hizb-ut-Tahrir. My point is he expressed extreme views on every subject under the sun from homosexuality to marriage outside of religion to the labour party having brought nothing but misery to the Muslim community. Which of his views has he renounced? And were the Labour party aware of his past when selecting him as a candidate?[/p][/quote]yer yer yer Khan , Khan ,khan is he standing for election this year? No! So why are you going on about it, I fail to see, what is your problem here, what is the relevance? I have sympathy for people who took up extremist republican views in the early seventies after Bloody Sunday not so much if thety continued to hold them in the 80's, not at all if they went round killing folks. The same is true for Islamic extremists following the second gulf war If Labour want to stand by a sinner who repented then good luck on them. If you want to rant on about it carry on you are doing yourself or your party no favors especially within the context of the remarks, publications and views of your partys deputy leader of the Euro parliament group. /Now that is an opinion you may not like it, but it has some reason to it, and although you and your circle of UKIP followers probably won't share it I do think that others will have a similar opinion and would find your comments to be shrill. Others might detect some glee in your willingness to raise the subject (not necessarily your last post but others~) and the perception of many will be that you are using this not out of any real concern, but out of desire to bash Labour or to discredit Muslims. I don't think there are Labour cllr up for election this year who are Muslim is that it ? You have to attack Khan because there are no Labour Muslim cllrs up for reelection this year? dontknowynot
  • Score: -1

3:01pm Wed 5 Feb 14

D_Penn says...

dontknowynot wrote:
http://www.huffingto npost.co.uk/2014/02/ 04/gerard-batten-mus lims-ukip-charter_n_ 4726200.html Oh well apart from the continues influx of Torys into your non Tory party it looks like another one of your MEPs is being controversial http://www.huffingto npost.co.uk/2014/02/ 04/gerard-batten-mus lims-ukip-charter_n_ 4726200.html So Phil Cox and fellow UKIPers do you support his stance on Muslims having to sign a special declaration and his view that half the Mosques are run by extremists. Locally do you view either of the Mosques in Watford as being run by extremists and if so what are you going to do about them?
Having looked through the charter, I find that it is a document that attempts to redefine or suspend parts of the Qur'an with the aim of making parts of it more compatible with current British law. Anyone who signed up for it would effectively be committing themselves to following a new Islamic sect.

Anyone who wants to read it can find a copy here...

http://www.theguardi
an.com/politics/inte
ractive/2014/feb/04/
charter-muslim-ukip-
gerard-batten

Personally, I view the concept as a complete non-starter. In my view, politicians should not be involving themselves in theocratic philosophy of this sort and there is absolutely no chance of this being adopted. Given that this must be obvious, I suspect it may have been created more with the aim of raising a debate about how areas where religious texts conflict with current law and modern concepts of equality could be resolved, but I would admit that expecting people to sign it is quite a crude approach that I do not agree with or support.

To answer your other question, I have never seen any evidence to suggest that Watford Mosques are being run by extremists. What do you think because you obviously have a view to have asked the question?
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: http://www.huffingto npost.co.uk/2014/02/ 04/gerard-batten-mus lims-ukip-charter_n_ 4726200.html Oh well apart from the continues influx of Torys into your non Tory party it looks like another one of your MEPs is being controversial http://www.huffingto npost.co.uk/2014/02/ 04/gerard-batten-mus lims-ukip-charter_n_ 4726200.html So Phil Cox and fellow UKIPers do you support his stance on Muslims having to sign a special declaration and his view that half the Mosques are run by extremists. Locally do you view either of the Mosques in Watford as being run by extremists and if so what are you going to do about them?[/p][/quote]Having looked through the charter, I find that it is a document that attempts to redefine or suspend parts of the Qur'an with the aim of making parts of it more compatible with current British law. Anyone who signed up for it would effectively be committing themselves to following a new Islamic sect. Anyone who wants to read it can find a copy here... http://www.theguardi an.com/politics/inte ractive/2014/feb/04/ charter-muslim-ukip- gerard-batten Personally, I view the concept as a complete non-starter. In my view, politicians should not be involving themselves in theocratic philosophy of this sort and there is absolutely no chance of this being adopted. Given that this must be obvious, I suspect it may have been created more with the aim of raising a debate about how areas where religious texts conflict with current law and modern concepts of equality could be resolved, but I would admit that expecting people to sign it is quite a crude approach that I do not agree with or support. To answer your other question, I have never seen any evidence to suggest that Watford Mosques are being run by extremists. What do you think because you obviously have a view to have asked the question? D_Penn
  • Score: 0

4:04pm Wed 5 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

D_Penn wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
http://www.huffingto npost.co.uk/2014/02/ 04/gerard-batten-mus lims-ukip-charter_n_ 4726200.html Oh well apart from the continues influx of Torys into your non Tory party it looks like another one of your MEPs is being controversial http://www.huffingto npost.co.uk/2014/02/ 04/gerard-batten-mus lims-ukip-charter_n_ 4726200.html So Phil Cox and fellow UKIPers do you support his stance on Muslims having to sign a special declaration and his view that half the Mosques are run by extremists. Locally do you view either of the Mosques in Watford as being run by extremists and if so what are you going to do about them?
Having looked through the charter, I find that it is a document that attempts to redefine or suspend parts of the Qur'an with the aim of making parts of it more compatible with current British law. Anyone who signed up for it would effectively be committing themselves to following a new Islamic sect.

Anyone who wants to read it can find a copy here...

http://www.theguardi

an.com/politics/inte

ractive/2014/feb/04/

charter-muslim-ukip-

gerard-batten

Personally, I view the concept as a complete non-starter. In my view, politicians should not be involving themselves in theocratic philosophy of this sort and there is absolutely no chance of this being adopted. Given that this must be obvious, I suspect it may have been created more with the aim of raising a debate about how areas where religious texts conflict with current law and modern concepts of equality could be resolved, but I would admit that expecting people to sign it is quite a crude approach that I do not agree with or support.

To answer your other question, I have never seen any evidence to suggest that Watford Mosques are being run by extremists. What do you think because you obviously have a view to have asked the question?
I am no wiser than you on the nature of the Mosques in Watford.
I fellow much of your logic on this but find it quite a barking mad suggestion personally and open to being interpretative as having some Mischievous intent. Hence the suggestion I made re conference.
[quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: http://www.huffingto npost.co.uk/2014/02/ 04/gerard-batten-mus lims-ukip-charter_n_ 4726200.html Oh well apart from the continues influx of Torys into your non Tory party it looks like another one of your MEPs is being controversial http://www.huffingto npost.co.uk/2014/02/ 04/gerard-batten-mus lims-ukip-charter_n_ 4726200.html So Phil Cox and fellow UKIPers do you support his stance on Muslims having to sign a special declaration and his view that half the Mosques are run by extremists. Locally do you view either of the Mosques in Watford as being run by extremists and if so what are you going to do about them?[/p][/quote]Having looked through the charter, I find that it is a document that attempts to redefine or suspend parts of the Qur'an with the aim of making parts of it more compatible with current British law. Anyone who signed up for it would effectively be committing themselves to following a new Islamic sect. Anyone who wants to read it can find a copy here... http://www.theguardi an.com/politics/inte ractive/2014/feb/04/ charter-muslim-ukip- gerard-batten Personally, I view the concept as a complete non-starter. In my view, politicians should not be involving themselves in theocratic philosophy of this sort and there is absolutely no chance of this being adopted. Given that this must be obvious, I suspect it may have been created more with the aim of raising a debate about how areas where religious texts conflict with current law and modern concepts of equality could be resolved, but I would admit that expecting people to sign it is quite a crude approach that I do not agree with or support. To answer your other question, I have never seen any evidence to suggest that Watford Mosques are being run by extremists. What do you think because you obviously have a view to have asked the question?[/p][/quote]I am no wiser than you on the nature of the Mosques in Watford. I fellow much of your logic on this but find it quite a barking mad suggestion personally and open to being interpretative as having some Mischievous intent. Hence the suggestion I made re conference. dontknowynot
  • Score: 0

6:55pm Wed 5 Feb 14

Popeonarope says...

DKWN = "I have sympathy for people who took up extremist republican views in the early seventies after Bloody Sunday not so much if they continued to hold them in the 80's, not at all if they went round killing folks.
The same is true for Islamic extremists following the second gulf war"

So what is a exceptable length of time to be an extremist then? 10 years?

D_Penn = "Personally, I view the concept as a complete non-starter. In my view, politicians should not be involving themselves in theocratic philosophy of this sort and ..."

I completely agree, as soon as the bishops are removed from the house of lords, tax exemption is removed from all churches and the state stops funding faith schools.
DKWN = "I have sympathy for people who took up extremist republican views in the early seventies after Bloody Sunday not so much if they continued to hold them in the 80's, not at all if they went round killing folks. The same is true for Islamic extremists following the second gulf war" So what is a exceptable length of time to be an extremist then? 10 years? D_Penn = "Personally, I view the concept as a complete non-starter. In my view, politicians should not be involving themselves in theocratic philosophy of this sort and ..." I completely agree, as soon as the bishops are removed from the house of lords, tax exemption is removed from all churches and the state stops funding faith schools. Popeonarope
  • Score: -1

7:46pm Wed 5 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

Popeonarope wrote:
DKWN = "I have sympathy for people who took up extremist republican views in the early seventies after Bloody Sunday not so much if they continued to hold them in the 80's, not at all if they went round killing folks.
The same is true for Islamic extremists following the second gulf war"

So what is a exceptable length of time to be an extremist then? 10 years?

D_Penn = "Personally, I view the concept as a complete non-starter. In my view, politicians should not be involving themselves in theocratic philosophy of this sort and ..."

I completely agree, as soon as the bishops are removed from the house of lords, tax exemption is removed from all churches and the state stops funding faith schools.
I wrote
I have sympathy for people who took up extremist republican views in the early seventies after Bloody Sunday not so much if thety continued to hold them in the 80's, not at all if they went round killing folks.
The same is true for Islamic extremists following the second gulf war
If Labour want to stand by a sinner who repented then good luck on them.

I am sorry I have not got a calculus to work the answer to your Q out, but my point is that I understand the tendency to Push back if someone pushes you, it is an entirely human reaction and utterly understandable

as to your last para well YES
[quote][p][bold]Popeonarope[/bold] wrote: DKWN = "I have sympathy for people who took up extremist republican views in the early seventies after Bloody Sunday not so much if they continued to hold them in the 80's, not at all if they went round killing folks. The same is true for Islamic extremists following the second gulf war" So what is a exceptable length of time to be an extremist then? 10 years? D_Penn = "Personally, I view the concept as a complete non-starter. In my view, politicians should not be involving themselves in theocratic philosophy of this sort and ..." I completely agree, as soon as the bishops are removed from the house of lords, tax exemption is removed from all churches and the state stops funding faith schools.[/p][/quote]I wrote I have sympathy for people who took up extremist republican views in the early seventies after Bloody Sunday not so much if thety continued to hold them in the 80's, not at all if they went round killing folks. The same is true for Islamic extremists following the second gulf war If Labour want to stand by a sinner who repented then good luck on them. I am sorry I have not got a calculus to work the answer to your Q out, but my point is that I understand the tendency to Push back if someone pushes you, it is an entirely human reaction and utterly understandable as to your last para well YES dontknowynot
  • Score: 0

10:37pm Wed 5 Feb 14

LSC says...

garston tony wrote:
LSC wrote:
garston tony wrote:
LSC wrote:
D_Penn wrote: Half the problem with so many of today's politicians that they are so unapproachable and detached from the hoi polloi. Online, all us involved in politics should use our own name so that when people meet you they can associate you with the views you make online and challenge them if they wish. If you believe in what you say then you shouldn't be frightened to debate openly with others. There is another point as well. If you don't post under your own name there have been examples where somebody else registers as you, pretends to be you, and then posts rubbish in order to damage you. If you are already posting under your own name it makes that dirty trick very unlikely to work.
I was tracked down, on an unrelated issue, via this site and someone contacted my boss with a view to getting me fired. I take that rather seriously. So yes, I do not post personal opinions under my own name. I would if personal opinions were my business though.
I'm still shocked that people would do that LSC, its utterly disgusting and out of order. Is that even legal? It shouldnt be.
I think the law was broken regarding slander and possibly the Data Protection Act. But I cannot deny what they quoted was what I had written, albeit in private e-mails, taken out of context or edited to suit a purpose. They were still my words, and I stand by them. Luckily my employers aren't stupid, and although they took the matter seriously, they saw it for what it was. An effort to keep me quiet, and I was for a while. But there comes a time in life when you have to stand up for what you believe, and will not be bullied. I will not be bullied. I know you and I clash a lot, but you have never questioned my right to an opinion, even though we are polar opposites in some areas. But that is how things are here, as the other story illustrates quite well. I'm not fighting sprirtuality or belief systems. I'm fighting selfishness, bullying and borderline corruption. Most people would be with me in that.
I'm glad you have good employers and they didnt entertain the scum that tried to cause trouble for you.

I might be wrong but I think on the matter that led to this trouble for you we might have been on opposite sides (law of averages if nothing else) so in effect my opinion would broadly speaking have been on the same side as those low lifes. I just want to make it clear that I in no way shape or form condone what they did, agree or disagree people are entitled to their opinions and to (within obvious reason) voice them.

It's likely that my position on whatever the subject was probably hasnt changed but whatever those people want they need to obtain it fairly through the democratic process. To try and silence someones opinion through blackmail and intimidation, to try and deny someone their democratic right let and try to get someone the sack is an all time low. The people involved truly disgust me.

I'm really interested in how they tracked you down, you have only every hinted over the years in the vaguest way at what you do which makes me believe that they did have to break laws in order to find out specifically who you were and where you worked. Have you considered taking that further with the authorities? Was there a breach at the WO itself, after all we have to give an email address in order to get an ID to be allowed to post.

If you'd rather not say I understand, i'll drop this unless you respond.
Quite simply, I got careless Tony, and for that have no-one to blame but myself.
One thing I am proud of is that I hold up my hands when I get it wrong, and I got it wrong. I should have used a Hotmail or similar address and a roving IP when I registered here. I didn't, and I got caught by some people who still had to go to some lengths, like finding out the name and address of my employer, who is not based where I actually work.
So they put some time in alright.

It was obviously a priority to silence me, and quickly.
The actual matter that brought it about, we only mildly clashed on if I recall. I dismissed it completely, but you admitted not getting it but defending the right for them to ask, or something like that, which is fair argument in my book.

After the event, I approached someone who I knew had links in that 'area' and he looked into it a little. He was polite and dignified, as he always is, and told me that in his opinion I had crossed a few lines.
I'll take that on the chin any time and I apologised to him for those comments that he felt went to far, although I did not retract them, and he accepted that and we are still friends with some different opinions. As it should be.
As we all should be.
[quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: Half the problem with so many of today's politicians that they are so unapproachable and detached from the hoi polloi. Online, all us involved in politics should use our own name so that when people meet you they can associate you with the views you make online and challenge them if they wish. If you believe in what you say then you shouldn't be frightened to debate openly with others. There is another point as well. If you don't post under your own name there have been examples where somebody else registers as you, pretends to be you, and then posts rubbish in order to damage you. If you are already posting under your own name it makes that dirty trick very unlikely to work.[/p][/quote]I was tracked down, on an unrelated issue, via this site and someone contacted my boss with a view to getting me fired. I take that rather seriously. So yes, I do not post personal opinions under my own name. I would if personal opinions were my business though.[/p][/quote]I'm still shocked that people would do that LSC, its utterly disgusting and out of order. Is that even legal? It shouldnt be.[/p][/quote]I think the law was broken regarding slander and possibly the Data Protection Act. But I cannot deny what they quoted was what I had written, albeit in private e-mails, taken out of context or edited to suit a purpose. They were still my words, and I stand by them. Luckily my employers aren't stupid, and although they took the matter seriously, they saw it for what it was. An effort to keep me quiet, and I was for a while. But there comes a time in life when you have to stand up for what you believe, and will not be bullied. I will not be bullied. I know you and I clash a lot, but you have never questioned my right to an opinion, even though we are polar opposites in some areas. But that is how things are here, as the other story illustrates quite well. I'm not fighting sprirtuality or belief systems. I'm fighting selfishness, bullying and borderline corruption. Most people would be with me in that.[/p][/quote]I'm glad you have good employers and they didnt entertain the scum that tried to cause trouble for you. I might be wrong but I think on the matter that led to this trouble for you we might have been on opposite sides (law of averages if nothing else) so in effect my opinion would broadly speaking have been on the same side as those low lifes. I just want to make it clear that I in no way shape or form condone what they did, agree or disagree people are entitled to their opinions and to (within obvious reason) voice them. It's likely that my position on whatever the subject was probably hasnt changed but whatever those people want they need to obtain it fairly through the democratic process. To try and silence someones opinion through blackmail and intimidation, to try and deny someone their democratic right let and try to get someone the sack is an all time low. The people involved truly disgust me. I'm really interested in how they tracked you down, you have only every hinted over the years in the vaguest way at what you do which makes me believe that they did have to break laws in order to find out specifically who you were and where you worked. Have you considered taking that further with the authorities? Was there a breach at the WO itself, after all we have to give an email address in order to get an ID to be allowed to post. If you'd rather not say I understand, i'll drop this unless you respond.[/p][/quote]Quite simply, I got careless Tony, and for that have no-one to blame but myself. One thing I am proud of is that I hold up my hands when I get it wrong, and I got it wrong. I should have used a Hotmail or similar address and a roving IP when I registered here. I didn't, and I got caught by some people who still had to go to some lengths, like finding out the name and address of my employer, who is not based where I actually work. So they put some time in alright. It was obviously a priority to silence me, and quickly. The actual matter that brought it about, we only mildly clashed on if I recall. I dismissed it completely, but you admitted not getting it but defending the right for them to ask, or something like that, which is fair argument in my book. After the event, I approached someone who I knew had links in that 'area' and he looked into it a little. He was polite and dignified, as he always is, and told me that in his opinion I had crossed a few lines. I'll take that on the chin any time and I apologised to him for those comments that he felt went to far, although I did not retract them, and he accepted that and we are still friends with some different opinions. As it should be. As we all should be. LSC
  • Score: 3

10:03am Thu 6 Feb 14

garston tony says...

The manner that you and that person you know dealt with the matter is the way to go, i'm still really agitated at the underhand tactics others used against you and think I will be for some time to come.

If people want something they have to ask/get it within democratic, moral and legal boundaries, to use intimidation and blackmail to silence critics is totally wrong.

Far be it for me to advise you but if someone tried that on me I would be sorely tempted to make sure their tactics backfired on them. I'm not usually an advocate of going to the press but something like this could be PR mana from heaven for any organised opposition to what those people wanted, and i'm still pretty sure they must have entered illegal realms to track you down and i'd ask the authorities to investigate that too.
The manner that you and that person you know dealt with the matter is the way to go, i'm still really agitated at the underhand tactics others used against you and think I will be for some time to come. If people want something they have to ask/get it within democratic, moral and legal boundaries, to use intimidation and blackmail to silence critics is totally wrong. Far be it for me to advise you but if someone tried that on me I would be sorely tempted to make sure their tactics backfired on them. I'm not usually an advocate of going to the press but something like this could be PR mana from heaven for any organised opposition to what those people wanted, and i'm still pretty sure they must have entered illegal realms to track you down and i'd ask the authorities to investigate that too. garston tony
  • Score: 1

12:16pm Thu 6 Feb 14

LSC says...

It is a VERY big boat to rock, unfortunately. To go public would mean telling everyone who I am, and after some of the comments I have made about drug dealers in the past under this name, I don't think that would be too wise!
I know who approached my employer, but I don't think it was him who collated the information or read all my emails and posts and 'cherry picked' the juicy parts, and probably didn't edit them either.
By editing them I mean he had printouts of single sentences, often incomplete ones, that he gave to my boss.
One might read "Black is white", or something, when the actual sentence I wrote was "I would never say black is white". That sort of thing, which is clever because I cannot deny I did write those three words, albeit in a very different context.

I have no doubt those very people are reading this post, and all I can hope is that you don't sleep very well. And of course if you are true to what you claim to represent, a far, far higher figure than me will judge you on your actions one day. So think on that.
It is a VERY big boat to rock, unfortunately. To go public would mean telling everyone who I am, and after some of the comments I have made about drug dealers in the past under this name, I don't think that would be too wise! I know who approached my employer, but I don't think it was him who collated the information or read all my emails and posts and 'cherry picked' the juicy parts, and probably didn't edit them either. By editing them I mean he had printouts of single sentences, often incomplete ones, that he gave to my boss. One might read "Black is white", or something, when the actual sentence I wrote was "I would never say black is white". That sort of thing, which is clever because I cannot deny I did write those three words, albeit in a very different context. I have no doubt those very people are reading this post, and all I can hope is that you don't sleep very well. And of course if you are true to what you claim to represent, a far, far higher figure than me will judge you on your actions one day. So think on that. LSC
  • Score: 1

12:43pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

I met two homeless men, brothers, in Watford High Street last Saturday. They were sleeping rough night after night in this weather. I hope they do not mind my highlighting their story here.

They said they had been in touch with Mark Watkin (LibDem) councillor, but they were still sleeping rough and it was the weekend.

I contacted New Hope trust who couldn't have been more helpful in attitude, but there were two problems with their help.

1. One of the men had been helped before, so couldn't be offered a bed unless referred by the police after 9pm that night. The other brother had not sought help here before so could be offered a bed straight away. The two brothers would