Yet another UKIP blunder
Discussion
longblackcoat said:
HarryW said:
The consistency of the BBC and PH responses amaze me, IMHO this is a storm in a tea cup all day long. What next sHall we ban little Britain, or is that still Acceptable. As I think it fair to say that TT having a modern Thai bride connotation was their direct making.
I think there many many more deserved things that require the press attention. However it is telling they'd rather get apopletic about some C grade bints stupid ill thought out and off the cuff casual remark though.
She's a would-be politician trying to get elected. The party she represents is particularly interested in immigration, and has been accused by some of being racist. This sort of comment would seem to give support to that view.I think there many many more deserved things that require the press attention. However it is telling they'd rather get apopletic about some C grade bints stupid ill thought out and off the cuff casual remark though.
What part of this isn't news?
Is it news, I don't know, low grade at best. Is it worthy of air time outside of the political bubble, probably not.
Do I care, if she shows herself to be easily influenced enough by a TV programme to spout such tripe without thinking it through, probably not. Are all politicians guilty of that to a greater or lesser extent, most certainly. Does it matter in the grand scheme of things, No, it's a storm in a tea cup.
smegmore said:
Digga said:
KIP are about having the right sort of immigration; so people can have pretty brides from Thailand, rather than having to marry frightening looking pig wrestlers from Eastern Europe. HTH.
As for Ting Tong, she was, in fact, a he IIRC.
As for Ting Tong, she was, in fact, a he IIRC.
Iain Dale sums up well..
http://iaindale.com/posts/2014/08/19/the-bbc-s-tin...
HonestIago said:
league67 said:
In an article linked to by UKIP supporter there were result of the research where typical UKIP voter is an older, white, poorly educated, working class male.
Be honest to yourself, and if you are you'll see that there is nothing that any of UKIP top brass say that will make you reconsider voting.
Hats off to Nigel for creating (stumbling upon?) religion. Religion of not terribly bright left behinds. To appeal to that demographic you just need to find appropriate scape goat on which to blame fact that your life didn't turned out as you hoped.
Correct, because the prospect of voting for either Labour, Conservatives or LibDems is utterly appalling. UKIP are the best option as far as I see things. Immigration is a very small part of their appeal. For me; less government, lower taxes, greater social mobility, less bureaucracy, lower crime tolerance and less wasting taxpayers' money on overseas wars/intervention/aid are the sort of policies I'd like the UK government to pursue. Be honest to yourself, and if you are you'll see that there is nothing that any of UKIP top brass say that will make you reconsider voting.
Hats off to Nigel for creating (stumbling upon?) religion. Religion of not terribly bright left behinds. To appeal to that demographic you just need to find appropriate scape goat on which to blame fact that your life didn't turned out as you hoped.
It has nothing to do with any supposed "scapegoating" nor any failures of my own. Calling UKIP supporters "not terribly bright left behinds" is pathetic, try using arguments rather than name-calling.
Do you really want people like that 'c grade Bint' and 'Helmer-lets-cure-the-god-damned-homos' to be in the government?
steveT350C said:
smegmore said:
Digga said:
KIP are about having the right sort of immigration; so people can have pretty brides from Thailand, rather than having to marry frightening looking pig wrestlers from Eastern Europe. HTH.
As for Ting Tong, she was, in fact, a he IIRC.
As for Ting Tong, she was, in fact, a he IIRC.
steveT350C said:
Ting Tong was a he, and, ironically, a creation from the BBC.
Iain Dale sums up well..
http://iaindale.com/posts/2014/08/19/the-bbc-s-tin...
Linky no worky for me.....See if this link works betterIain Dale sums up well..
http://iaindale.com/posts/2014/08/19/the-bbc-s-tin...
http://www.iaindale.com/posts/2014/08/19/the-bbc-s...
steveT350C said:
smegmore said:
Digga said:
KIP are about having the right sort of immigration; so people can have pretty brides from Thailand, rather than having to marry frightening looking pig wrestlers from Eastern Europe. HTH.
As for Ting Tong, she was, in fact, a he IIRC.
As for Ting Tong, she was, in fact, a he IIRC.
Iain Dale sums up well..
http://iaindale.com/posts/2014/08/19/the-bbc-s-tin...
Just as you were "supposed" to laugh at Rigsby and Alf Garnet for their self aggrandising arrogance and shameless ignorance, "Little Britain" was the same, I fear a 20 page mindless shambolic rant about context, so shall try to subvert by just asking you to please consider what is funnier the word Ting Tong or the ridiculous pomposity of those who would use it?
You still don't get it do you?
league67 said:
So, regardless of what UKIP 'top management' says and do, all others are worse? The things that you are listing are not policies. They are wish list. Try to understand the difference, and when you do, cost them. You were saying that 'not terribly bright' is pathetic?
Do you really want people like that 'c grade Bint' and 'Helmer-lets-cure-the-god-damned-homos' to be in the government?
Why can't I support a party who at least WANT what I would consider positive outcomes? Do you really want people like that 'c grade Bint' and 'Helmer-lets-cure-the-god-damned-homos' to be in the government?
FFS you expect everyone who has an opinion on government policies to be able to cost everything they type on a forum?
There are (and have been) MPs in gov't who are capable of far worse than a bit of name-calling. I don't suppose paedophilia, rape and countless cases of defrauding the taxpayer matter do they?
UKIP are not perfect. No one is saying they are, yet you argue in a manner that suggests you know a better alternative? One thing is for sure is that the only real choice voters have is UKIP vs the rest. Which of the other parties offer something better or more aligned to your interests?
FredClogs said:
steveT350C said:
smegmore said:
Digga said:
KIP are about having the right sort of immigration; so people can have pretty brides from Thailand, rather than having to marry frightening looking pig wrestlers from Eastern Europe. HTH.
As for Ting Tong, she was, in fact, a he IIRC.
As for Ting Tong, she was, in fact, a he IIRC.
Iain Dale sums up well..
http://iaindale.com/posts/2014/08/19/the-bbc-s-tin...
Just as you were "supposed" to laugh at Rigsby and Alf Garnet for their self aggrandising arrogance and shameless ignorance, "Little Britain" was the same, I fear a 20 page mindless shambolic rant about context, so shall try to subvert by just asking you to please consider what is funnier the word Ting Tong or the ridiculous pomposity of those who would use it?
You still don't get it do you?
steveT350C said:
FredClogs said:
steveT350C said:
smegmore said:
Digga said:
KIP are about having the right sort of immigration; so people can have pretty brides from Thailand, rather than having to marry frightening looking pig wrestlers from Eastern Europe. HTH.
As for Ting Tong, she was, in fact, a he IIRC.
As for Ting Tong, she was, in fact, a he IIRC.
Iain Dale sums up well..
http://iaindale.com/posts/2014/08/19/the-bbc-s-tin...
Just as you were "supposed" to laugh at Rigsby and Alf Garnet for their self aggrandising arrogance and shameless ignorance, "Little Britain" was the same, I fear a 20 page mindless shambolic rant about context, so shall try to subvert by just asking you to please consider what is funnier the word Ting Tong or the ridiculous pomposity of those who would use it?
You still don't get it do you?
The whole joke in the ting tong thing is the stupidity of her husband who doesn't realise she is a man, because he a Little Britainer.
It's called Little Britain - do you get it now?
HonestIago said:
league67 said:
So, regardless of what UKIP 'top management' says and do, all others are worse? The things that you are listing are not policies. They are wish list. Try to understand the difference, and when you do, cost them. You were saying that 'not terribly bright' is pathetic?
Do you really want people like that 'c grade Bint' and 'Helmer-lets-cure-the-god-damned-homos' to be in the government?
Why can't I support a party who at least WANT what I would consider positive outcomes? Do you really want people like that 'c grade Bint' and 'Helmer-lets-cure-the-god-damned-homos' to be in the government?
HonestIago said:
FFS you expect everyone who has an opinion on government policies to be able to cost everything they type on a forum?
No need to get upset. I expect that party that markets itself as a serious contender, to be able to cost any of their policies. For reasons that you described as pathetic, I doubt that that is important to many of UKIP supporters. It seems that those same supporters are paralysed by fear and that the UKIP is the only saviour.
HonestIago said:
There are (and have been) MPs in gov't who are capable of far worse than a bit of name-calling. I don't suppose paedophilia, rape and countless cases of defrauding the taxpayer matter do they?
Even on this very thread, dandarez, tried the similar angle. Tories removed the guy from the job for attending a party where someone else was dressed as a Nazi. UKIP supporter tried to portray that Tory MP was not only dressed as Nazi but did the salute too. I'll let you to decide if that UKIP supporter is stupid or malicious.
If politicians of any party, or independent ones, are guilty of 'paedophilia, rape and countless cases of defrauding the taxpeyer' they should be held to account and jailed if appropriate. I'm unsure why you 'don't suppose' that to be the case.
HonestIago said:
UKIP are not perfect. No one is saying they are, yet you argue in a manner that suggests you know a better alternative? One thing is for sure is that the only real choice voters have is UKIP vs the rest. Which of the other parties offer something better or more aligned to your interests?
That is not real choice at all. That makes an assumption that all other parties are the same and yet UKIP is somehow different. UKIP USP is demographics that they target. You might be offended by that, but you don't even need the research to show that UKIP demographics are mostly C2 and bellow. If I was able to vote at the last local elections I would vote for the Conservative guy (who won regardless). UKIP offering was abysmal to say the least. People like Janice will never do well here. As for next general elections, Cons did a good job at fixing the mess left by Lab. They did remarkably well on economic front. There are policies, like health for example, where I don't agree with them.
FredClogs said:
steveT350C said:
FredClogs said:
steveT350C said:
smegmore said:
Digga said:
KIP are about having the right sort of immigration; so people can have pretty brides from Thailand, rather than having to marry frightening looking pig wrestlers from Eastern Europe. HTH.
As for Ting Tong, she was, in fact, a he IIRC.
As for Ting Tong, she was, in fact, a he IIRC.
Iain Dale sums up well..
http://iaindale.com/posts/2014/08/19/the-bbc-s-tin...
Just as you were "supposed" to laugh at Rigsby and Alf Garnet for their self aggrandising arrogance and shameless ignorance, "Little Britain" was the same, I fear a 20 page mindless shambolic rant about context, so shall try to subvert by just asking you to please consider what is funnier the word Ting Tong or the ridiculous pomposity of those who would use it?
You still don't get it do you?
The whole joke in the ting tong thing is the stupidity of her husband who doesn't realise she is a man, because he a Little Britainer.
It's called Little Britain - do you get it now?
FredClogs said:
steveT350C said:
FredClogs said:
steveT350C said:
smegmore said:
Digga said:
KIP are about having the right sort of immigration; so people can have pretty brides from Thailand, rather than having to marry frightening looking pig wrestlers from Eastern Europe. HTH.
As for Ting Tong, she was, in fact, a he IIRC.
As for Ting Tong, she was, in fact, a he IIRC.
Iain Dale sums up well..
http://iaindale.com/posts/2014/08/19/the-bbc-s-tin...
Just as you were "supposed" to laugh at Rigsby and Alf Garnet for their self aggrandising arrogance and shameless ignorance, "Little Britain" was the same, I fear a 20 page mindless shambolic rant about context, so shall try to subvert by just asking you to please consider what is funnier the word Ting Tong or the ridiculous pomposity of those who would use it?
You still don't get it do you?
The whole joke in the ting tong thing is the stupidity of her husband who doesn't realise she is a man, because he a Little Britainer.
It's called Little Britain - do you get it now
pcvdriver said:
FredClogs said:
steveT350C said:
FredClogs said:
steveT350C said:
smegmore said:
Digga said:
KIP are about having the right sort of immigration; so people can have pretty brides from Thailand, rather than having to marry frightening looking pig wrestlers from Eastern Europe. HTH.
As for Ting Tong, she was, in fact, a he IIRC.
As for Ting Tong, she was, in fact, a he IIRC.
Iain Dale sums up well..
http://iaindale.com/posts/2014/08/19/the-bbc-s-tin...
Just as you were "supposed" to laugh at Rigsby and Alf Garnet for their self aggrandising arrogance and shameless ignorance, "Little Britain" was the same, I fear a 20 page mindless shambolic rant about context, so shall try to subvert by just asking you to please consider what is funnier the word Ting Tong or the ridiculous pomposity of those who would use it?
You still don't get it do you?
The whole joke in the ting tong thing is the stupidity of her husband who doesn't realise she is a man, because he a Little Britainer.
It's called Little Britain - do you get it now
However I think you dismiss too easily the fact that regardless of the original intent of the sketches to show his stupidity it has entered the popular vernacular as a term for a Thai bride.
I found this very interesting, because it is a perfect example of typical muddle-headed thinking
And if UKIP are going to say - "ah well, this only applies to adults" then how and where do you draw the line? Size of bike? Bit of a problem with small adults and big kids. Age? Cyclists have no licence to cycle, so how are the authorities to know?
Then we read "We support provision of cycle parking at reasonable charges" And how would that be enforced then, given that you don't need a parking bay for a bike - you could chain it to railings, a lamp post or park it in somebody's garden.
It strikes me that for anything like this to work their would have to be a small army of "cycling police" to check that nobody is avoiding their tax discs, third party insurance liability and parking charges.
And this from a party that ostensibly stands for "small government"
Proof positive, if any more were needed, that UKIP is run by, and appeals to, people who were hiding behind the door when brains were being dished out.
paranoid airbag said:
Here's the "less government" UKIP approach to, say, cycling:
It may have escaped the policymaker's attention, but cycling is not just an adult occupation. Kids do it too. Are you going to have a "simple annual flat rate registration ‘Cycledisc’" on a five-year old's bike? How is this five year old going to get "minimum third party liability insurance cover" given that they cannot enter into an insurance, or indeed any, legal contract as a minor?UKIP manifesto said:
10.2 We believe that there needs to be a better balance of rights and responsibilities for pedal cyclists, with too much aggressive abuse of red lights, pedestrian crossings and a lack of basic safety and road courtesy.
10.6 UKIP would consult on the desirability of minimum third party liability insurance cover for cyclists - a simple annual flat rate registration ‘Cycledisc’, stuck to the bicycle frame, to cover damage to cars and others, which are currently unprotected. The Cycledisc should also carry clear identification details, which will help counter bicycle theft, and deter dangerous cyclist behaviour. We support provision of cycle parking at reasonable charges.
10.7 UKIP believes that basic cycle and safety training should be made mandatory, and be funded in schools or via local authorities. UKIP supports the campaign work of national cycling organisations.
10.9 Local authorities should be given additional powers to enforce a ‘cyclists dismount’ or ‘no cycling’ regulation where there are safety concerns – such as on busy roundabouts, junctions or bus lanes, or where the road would be too narrowed by cycle lanes and cause unacceptable delays to traffic
10.6 UKIP would consult on the desirability of minimum third party liability insurance cover for cyclists - a simple annual flat rate registration ‘Cycledisc’, stuck to the bicycle frame, to cover damage to cars and others, which are currently unprotected. The Cycledisc should also carry clear identification details, which will help counter bicycle theft, and deter dangerous cyclist behaviour. We support provision of cycle parking at reasonable charges.
10.7 UKIP believes that basic cycle and safety training should be made mandatory, and be funded in schools or via local authorities. UKIP supports the campaign work of national cycling organisations.
10.9 Local authorities should be given additional powers to enforce a ‘cyclists dismount’ or ‘no cycling’ regulation where there are safety concerns – such as on busy roundabouts, junctions or bus lanes, or where the road would be too narrowed by cycle lanes and cause unacceptable delays to traffic
And if UKIP are going to say - "ah well, this only applies to adults" then how and where do you draw the line? Size of bike? Bit of a problem with small adults and big kids. Age? Cyclists have no licence to cycle, so how are the authorities to know?
Then we read "We support provision of cycle parking at reasonable charges" And how would that be enforced then, given that you don't need a parking bay for a bike - you could chain it to railings, a lamp post or park it in somebody's garden.
It strikes me that for anything like this to work their would have to be a small army of "cycling police" to check that nobody is avoiding their tax discs, third party insurance liability and parking charges.
And this from a party that ostensibly stands for "small government"
Proof positive, if any more were needed, that UKIP is run by, and appeals to, people who were hiding behind the door when brains were being dished out.
rs1952 said:
I found this very interesting, because it is a perfect example of typical muddle-headed thinking
And if UKIP are going to say - "ah well, this only applies to adults" then how and where do you draw the line? Size of bike? Bit of a problem with small adults and big kids. Age? Cyclists have no licence to cycle, so how are the authorities to know?
Then we read "We support provision of cycle parking at reasonable charges" And how would that be enforced then, given that you don't need a parking bay for a bike - you could chain it to railings, a lamp post or park it in somebody's garden.
It strikes me that for anything like this to work their would have to be a small army of "cycling police" to check that nobody is avoiding their tax discs, third party insurance liability and parking charges.
And this from a party that ostensibly stands for "small government"
Proof positive, if any more were needed, that UKIP is run by, and appeals to, people who were hiding behind the door when brains were being dished out.
None of that seems particularly difficult. Forget the 'disc' just have suitably sized numberplates for bikes. No plate equals not legal, no different to small motorbikes. Just extend DVLA coverage of vehicles, with the annual licence for bikes to cover minimum insurance. We already have the small army of police, including smart cameras, detecting vehicles with no road licence, no more would be required. paranoid airbag said:
Here's the "less government" UKIP approach to, say, cycling:
It may have escaped the policymaker's attention, but cycling is not just an adult occupation. Kids do it too. Are you going to have a "simple annual flat rate registration ‘Cycledisc’" on a five-year old's bike? How is this five year old going to get "minimum third party liability insurance cover" given that they cannot enter into an insurance, or indeed any, legal contract as a minor?UKIP manifesto said:
10.2 We believe that there needs to be a better balance of rights and responsibilities for pedal cyclists, with too much aggressive abuse of red lights, pedestrian crossings and a lack of basic safety and road courtesy.
10.6 UKIP would consult on the desirability of minimum third party liability insurance cover for cyclists - a simple annual flat rate registration ‘Cycledisc’, stuck to the bicycle frame, to cover damage to cars and others, which are currently unprotected. The Cycledisc should also carry clear identification details, which will help counter bicycle theft, and deter dangerous cyclist behaviour. We support provision of cycle parking at reasonable charges.
10.7 UKIP believes that basic cycle and safety training should be made mandatory, and be funded in schools or via local authorities. UKIP supports the campaign work of national cycling organisations.
10.9 Local authorities should be given additional powers to enforce a ‘cyclists dismount’ or ‘no cycling’ regulation where there are safety concerns – such as on busy roundabouts, junctions or bus lanes, or where the road would be too narrowed by cycle lanes and cause unacceptable delays to traffic
10.6 UKIP would consult on the desirability of minimum third party liability insurance cover for cyclists - a simple annual flat rate registration ‘Cycledisc’, stuck to the bicycle frame, to cover damage to cars and others, which are currently unprotected. The Cycledisc should also carry clear identification details, which will help counter bicycle theft, and deter dangerous cyclist behaviour. We support provision of cycle parking at reasonable charges.
10.7 UKIP believes that basic cycle and safety training should be made mandatory, and be funded in schools or via local authorities. UKIP supports the campaign work of national cycling organisations.
10.9 Local authorities should be given additional powers to enforce a ‘cyclists dismount’ or ‘no cycling’ regulation where there are safety concerns – such as on busy roundabouts, junctions or bus lanes, or where the road would be too narrowed by cycle lanes and cause unacceptable delays to traffic
And if UKIP are going to say - "ah well, this only applies to adults" then how and where do you draw the line? Size of bike? Bit of a problem with small adults and big kids. Age? Cyclists have no licence to cycle, so how are the authorities to know?
Then we read "We support provision of cycle parking at reasonable charges" And how would that be enforced then, given that you don't need a parking bay for a bike - you could chain it to railings, a lamp post or park it in somebody's garden.
It strikes me that for anything like this to work their would have to be a small army of "cycling police" to check that nobody is avoiding their tax discs, third party insurance liability and parking charges.
And this from a party that ostensibly stands for "small government"
Proof positive, if any more were needed, that UKIP is run by, and appeals to, people who were hiding behind the door when brains were being dished out.
rs1952 said:
It may have escaped the policymaker's attention, but cycling is not just an adult occupation. Kids do it too. Are you going to have a "simple annual flat rate registration ‘Cycledisc’" on a five-year old's bike? How is this five year old going to get "minimum third party liability insurance cover" given that they cannot enter into an insurance, or indeed any, legal contract as a minor?
And if UKIP are going to say - "ah well, this only applies to adults" then how and where do you draw the line? Size of bike? Bit of a problem with small adults and big kids. Age? Cyclists have no licence to cycle, so how are the authorities to know?
Then we read "We support provision of cycle parking at reasonable charges" And how would that be enforced then, given that you don't need a parking bay for a bike - you could chain it to railings, a lamp post or park it in somebody's garden.
It strikes me that for anything like this to work their would have to be a small army of "cycling police" to check that nobody is avoiding their tax discs, third party insurance liability and parking charges.
And this from a party that ostensibly stands for "small government"
Proof positive, if any more were needed, that UKIP is run by, and appeals to, people who were hiding behind the door when brains were being dished out.
Don't be preposterous..... to hide behind the door would require brains in the first place. Think of it more of a not quite thoroughly thought through knee jerk reaction in a lame attempt to appear to try save tax payers' money...... And if UKIP are going to say - "ah well, this only applies to adults" then how and where do you draw the line? Size of bike? Bit of a problem with small adults and big kids. Age? Cyclists have no licence to cycle, so how are the authorities to know?
Then we read "We support provision of cycle parking at reasonable charges" And how would that be enforced then, given that you don't need a parking bay for a bike - you could chain it to railings, a lamp post or park it in somebody's garden.
It strikes me that for anything like this to work their would have to be a small army of "cycling police" to check that nobody is avoiding their tax discs, third party insurance liability and parking charges.
And this from a party that ostensibly stands for "small government"
Proof positive, if any more were needed, that UKIP is run by, and appeals to, people who were hiding behind the door when brains were being dished out.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff