UKIP - The Future - Volume 3

[don4l]

DJRC said:

<snip>
Which segues us nicely into King's point on the last page of whether this is a PR own goal for Claridge...have they alienated their female clientele?

My instinct personally says no. The ladies of sufficient economic firepower who indulge at Claridges invariably by and large view life differently to others. I suspect they would prefer to side with Claridges than with the lady. I stress this is my instinct, I accept I may be entirely wrong and that Claridges will suffer economically as a result of this.

I agree. Many of the "offended" seem to be female.

Personally, I always think that it is lovely to see a woman breastfeeding. I also feel that women should be able to do it whenever the baby needs feeding.

The only place that I have seen it recently is in the Cafe at my local Sainsbury's superstore. The mothers always sit in the same seat. This seat is in a corner of the cafe that is just off the end of the counter. These women are being discrete.

The woman in Claridges was sitting slap bang in the middle of the restaurant. I reckon that she was trying to make a point. She was acting just like the two gay blokes who deliberately booked themselves into the Christian B&B just so they could sue the owners.

[King Cnut]

DJRC said:

?
He suggests that *perhaps* they might ask her to sit in the corner.
He says he doesn't believe they should *have* to do this.
He says he doesn't endorse the above concepts.

None of those statements contradict each other, so Im not sure why you say it doesn't make sense.

We are back to you misrepresenting your thoughts/assumptions/presumptions as facts when it isn't true.

You did say you wished to continue pointing out weak arguments. Im assisting you in your task

If women don't have to sit in the corner, asking them to sit there is redundant. Why bother asking them if they aren't required to? They'd quite rightly refuse, leaving you looking like an idiot. The whole precept is daft beyond words.

Moreover, maybe he doesn't endorse your first statement, as you say, but he most certainly does endorse your second. (Hint: If you want to appear smart, don't confuse yourself with a double negative).

So, basically, it's not me misrepresenting anything. I just pointed out that his original statement - about 'ostentatious breast feeding' - was absurd and his follow up statement only made things worse. In practice, it's unlawful under the 2010 Equality Act for a business to discriminate against a woman because she's breastfeeding. Telling her to sit in a corner would be unlawful. Farage was, therefore, instructing a business to behave unlawfully. (Perhaps he's been rewriting UKIP policy again and wishes to rescind the 2010 Equal Act? Useful to know - it might cost him nearly every female vote),

The only misrepresentation going on here is yours - misrepresenting the law and misrepresenting yourself with of your limited grasp of basic grammar.

But hey, thanks for the assistance pointing out weak arguments
.

[Mojocvh]

Y b

johnxjsc1985 said:

regarding Breastfeeding there used to be something called modesty , an old fashioned value I know.

Absolutely, the ladies pictures that have been on the BBC website do give the appearance, albiet wrongly or not, as being somewhat staged..however women should be encouraged to breast feed as it is best.

Edited by Mojocvh on Saturday 6th December 00:22

[dandarez]

King said:

DJRC said:

?
He suggests that *perhaps* they might ask her to sit in the corner.
He says he doesn't believe they should *have* to do this.
He says he doesn't endorse the above concepts.

None of those statements contradict each other, so Im not sure why you say it doesn't make sense.

We are back to you misrepresenting your thoughts/assumptions/presumptions as facts when it isn't true.

You did say you wished to continue pointing out weak arguments. Im assisting you in your task

If women don't have to sit in the corner, asking them to sit there is redundant. Why bother asking them if they aren't required to? They'd quite rightly refuse, leaving you looking like an idiot. The whole precept is daft beyond words.

Moreover, maybe he doesn't endorse your first statement, as you say, but he most certainly does endorse your second. (Hint: If you want to appear smart, don't confuse yourself with a double negative).

So, basically, it's not me misrepresenting anything. I just pointed out that his original statement - about 'ostentatious breast feeding' - was absurd and his follow up statement only made things worse. In practice, it's unlawful under the 2010 Equality Act for a business to discriminate against a woman because she's breastfeeding. Telling her to sit in a corner would be unlawful. Farage was, therefore, instructing a business to behave unlawfully. (Perhaps he's been rewriting UKIP policy again and wishes to rescind the 2010 Equal Act? Useful to know - it might cost him nearly every female vote),

The only misrepresentation going on here is yours - misrepresenting the law and misrepresenting yourself with of your limited grasp of basic grammar.

But hey, thanks for the assistance pointing out weak arguments
.

Oh dear, the King tt is now professing to be a grammar nazi.

Forget my last request to go back and hide under your stone...

Please God, stop the waves lapping round his feet and send in a tidal wave and make this ignoramus disappear.

[Mojocvh]

dandarez said:

King said:

DJRC said:

?
He suggests that *perhaps* they might ask her to sit in the corner.
He says he doesn't believe they should *have* to do this.
He says he doesn't endorse the above concepts.

None of those statements contradict each other, so Im not sure why you say it doesn't make sense.

We are back to you misrepresenting your thoughts/assumptions/presumptions as facts when it isn't true.

You did say you wished to continue pointing out weak arguments. Im assisting you in your task

If women don't have to sit in the corner, asking them to sit there is redundant. Why bother asking them if they aren't required to? They'd quite rightly refuse, leaving you looking like an idiot. The whole precept is daft beyond words.

Moreover, maybe he doesn't endorse your first statement, as you say, but he most certainly does endorse your second. (Hint: If you want to appear smart, don't confuse yourself with a double negative).

So, basically, it's not me misrepresenting anything. I just pointed out that his original statement - about 'ostentatious breast feeding' - was absurd and his follow up statement only made things worse. In practice, it's unlawful under the 2010 Equality Act for a business to discriminate against a woman because she's breastfeeding. Telling her to sit in a corner would be unlawful. Farage was, therefore, instructing a business to behave unlawfully. (Perhaps he's been rewriting UKIP policy again and wishes to rescind the 2010 Equal Act? Useful to know - it might cost him nearly every female vote),

The only misrepresentation going on here is yours - misrepresenting the law and misrepresenting yourself with of your limited grasp of basic grammar.

But hey, thanks for the assistance pointing out weak arguments
.

Oh dear, the King tt is now professing to be a grammar nazi.

Forget my last request to go back and hide under your stone...

Please God, stop the waves lapping round his feet and send in a tidal wave and make this ignoramus disappear.

Actually the one thread he's started is quite interesting in a kinda beans and rice cooking way...

[King Cnut]

dandarez said:

Oh dear, the King tt is now professing to be a grammar nazi.

Forget my last request to go back and hide under your stone...

Please God, stop the waves lapping round his feet and send in a tidal wave and make this ignoramus disappear.

And if I'd made a similar error, you'd be all over it like a fly on dog poo.

If I recall correctly, you told me to disappear under a stone after you'd fallen flat on your face following your being proved wrong in your accusation that I knew nothing about copyright. This time, you want me to disappear under a tidal wave because I pointed out the self-evident stupidity of Farage's latest gaffe.
I dunno, something tells me I must be doing something right.

Far be it from me to help you stop sounding like a dick with your unwavering support for Silly Uncle Nigel, but have you ever considered going about things in a different way? How about the next time Farage says something stupid, why don't you try saying something along the lines of what FiF said? i.e. "Oh dear, Nigel's just said something a bit silly but let's admit he's probably got it wrong, play it down and move quickly on...". But no, what you and the other UKIP fan boys, like Scuffers, do is go into a cock-up feeding frenzy and attempt to defend Nigel with increasingly bonkers arguments which serve only to make you and UKIP look weird and out of touch with reality. You're doing my job for me.

And talking of jobs, no I'm not in the pay of the EU to undermine everything UKIP, as some have asserted. But if anyone knows how I can earn a living out of it, I'm all ears - it is fun, after all.

Oh, and apparently Claridges have now said they have no policy of asking breast feeding women to wear the equivalent of a bhurka or telling them to sit in a corner. Your fox has been shot and stuffed.

[DJRC]

King said:

DJRC said:

?
He suggests that *perhaps* they might ask her to sit in the corner.
He says he doesn't believe they should *have* to do this.
He says he doesn't endorse the above concepts.

None of those statements contradict each other, so Im not sure why you say it doesn't make sense.

We are back to you misrepresenting your thoughts/assumptions/presumptions as facts when it isn't true.

You did say you wished to continue pointing out weak arguments. Im assisting you in your task

If women don't have to sit in the corner, asking them to sit there is redundant. Why bother asking them if they aren't required to? They'd quite rightly refuse, leaving you looking like an idiot. The whole precept is daft beyond words.

Moreover, maybe he doesn't endorse your first statement, as you say, but he most certainly does endorse your second. (Hint: If you want to appear smart, don't confuse yourself with a double negative).

So, basically, it's not me misrepresenting anything. I just pointed out that his original statement - about 'ostentatious breast feeding' - was absurd and his follow up statement only made things worse. In practice, it's unlawful under the 2010 Equality Act for a business to discriminate against a woman because she's breastfeeding. Telling her to sit in a corner would be unlawful. Farage was, therefore, instructing a business to behave unlawfully. (Perhaps he's been rewriting UKIP policy again and wishes to rescind the 2010 Equal Act? Useful to know - it might cost him nearly every female vote),

The only misrepresentation going on here is yours - misrepresenting the law and misrepresenting yourself with of your limited grasp of basic grammar.

But hey, thanks for the assistance pointing out weak arguments
.

Because a discretionary request is more often accepted than an order. This is the reason hotels now use such language in order to have you minimise the use of towels. You will notice it is always requests. Research has shown quite dramatically guests accept the requests and has cut down the towel usage. That the hotels use a green/environment argument when in fact it is simply to cut their laundry costs is neither here nor there, its the packaging of the message that is the pertinent point here. Hence the point being that they would highly likely NOT most likely refuse, they would in fact be more likely to say " ok, no problem", far more likely in fact than being told to. And as you point out it nicely gets round some legal issues.

I put the marks around the salient words to help you out.

• perhaps* indicating optional.
• have* indicating enforced.

Of course he endorses the second statement...he is endorsing the right of the lady NOT to do as perhaps suggested.
I thought this was quite clear, I apologise if you have not followed the simplified statements.

Thankyou for your support in pointing out the weak logic and arguments. I am happy to continue offering you assistance, so far our alliance has clarified two threads in regards to the actual facts.

[NicD]

The future of UKIP is bright , perhaps helped by the tt trolls that infect forums like this.

In any case, they have already achieved a huge amount by raising consciousness about the issues, so steering the main parties away from their disastrous course.

Even challenged Mirror readers show a majority - I voted in an online poll there on Thursday morning and over 50% said they would consider voting UKIP.

[BooHoo]

NicD said:

The future of UKIP is bright , perhaps helped by the tt trolls that infect forums like this.

Couldn't agree more, it does make me wonder what they are hoping to achieve. Critical mass will be reached in the run up to the GE, words will be exchanged, stories will be twisted and spun, insults will be traded, typos and grammatical errors will be highlighted, but a lefty won't become right and right will not become wrong.

[mrpurple]

BooHoo said:

NicD said:

The future of UKIP is bright , perhaps helped by the tt trolls that infect forums like this.

Couldn't agree more, it does make me wonder what they are hoping to achieve. Critical mass will be reached in the run up to the GE, words will be exchanged, stories will be twisted and spun, insults will be traded, typos and grammatical errors will be highlighted, but a lefty won't become right and right will not become wrong.

And however hard they try they won't turn back the UKIP tide.

[FiF]

But for example why get wound up over the UKIP Trumpton ttter account?

Just let it ride and the serial tts like John McTernan furiously retweeting every twunt from Trumpton poking fun just make themselves look increasingly puerile and desperate. And if they're desperate something must be working.

On the matter of the breastfeeding, anyone offended wasn't going to be voting UKIP anyway. So move on, learn about the no win question, pick fights carefully and argue the points that matter.

Nevertheless , some issues will continue to get down and dirty in the gutter, immigration being a prime example.

[King Cnut]

DJRC said:

Because a discretionary request is more often accepted than an order. This is the reason hotels now use such language in order to have you minimise the use of towels. You will notice it is always requests. Research has shown quite dramatically guests accept the requests and has cut down the towel usage. That the hotels use a green/environment argument when in fact it is simply to cut their laundry costs is neither here nor there, its the packaging of the message that is the pertinent point here. Hence the point being that they would highly likely NOT most likely refuse, they would in fact be more likely to say " ok, no problem", far more likely in fact than being told to. And as you point out it nicely gets round some legal issues.

I put the marks around the salient words to help you out.

• perhaps* indicating optional.
• have* indicating enforced.

Of course he endorses the second statement...he is endorsing the right of the lady NOT to do as perhaps suggested.
I thought this was quite clear, I apologise if you have not followed the simplified statements.

Thankyou for your support in pointing out the weak logic and arguments. I am happy to continue offering you assistance, so far our alliance has clarified two threads in regards to the actual facts.

Would you be so kind as to translate the first paragraph into plain English, I honestly haven't a clue what you're on about. Laundry costs? Environmental arguments? What on earth are you on about?

Let's try to clarify what you seem unable to understand.

DJRC said:

1) He suggests that *perhaps* they might ask her to sit in the corner.
2) He says he doesn't believe they should *have* to do this.
3) He says he doesn't endorse the above concepts.

1+3=Good - Farage does not endorse woman sitting in corner.

2+3=Bad - Farage doesn't believe they should have to sit in corner (2) but doesn't endorse this (3).

The two negatives cancel. i.e. Farage does believe they should have to sit in corner (2) and he does endorse that they should have to (3).

I'm not sure I can make it any plainer. Basically, you don't understand the meaning of your own words - this tends to be a handicap when explaining relatively simple things to other people.

All you're doing is making a fool of yourself and this reflects badly on the kind of people who support UKIP. In fact, the UKIP supporters who understand what I'm saying are quietly wishing you'd shut up - hence FiF's latest contribution. I'd ignore them if I was you, though, you're doing a superb job!

Edited by King on Saturday 6th December 11:59

[King Cnut]

BooHoo said:

NicD said:

The future of UKIP is bright , perhaps helped by the tt trolls that infect forums like this.

Couldn't agree more, it does make me wonder what they are hoping to achieve. Critical mass will be reached in the run up to the GE, words will be exchanged, stories will be twisted and spun, insults will be traded, typos and grammatical errors will be highlighted, but a lefty won't become right and right will not become wrong.

And let's pretend that NicD didn't say that UKIP's policies are purely for the "indigenous" people.




Nothing to see here, let's move along there now. Don't listen to the horrible troll...

[vonuber]

So UKIP wants to slash the licence fee for the bbc? To what level? And why?

I've never understood this outrage over the licence fee, it's fantastic value for money and makes for unique programming across a massive range of interests and views.
Why ukip would want to destroy such a key British institution is beyond me.

[BooHoo]

King said:

And let's pretend that NicD didn't say that UKIP's policies are purely for the "indigenous" people.

You can pretend whatever you like, won't change the fact that your trolling is about as worthwhile as pissing in the wind.

Happy posting .

[FiF]

Just for the record, rolling reminder, it may seem like it at times, but not a UKIP supporter. Yes they do have some stances which I wholly support. Others not support, others where neither here nor there and some where can see where coming from but not sure how it could be implemented in practise.

I can say the same for all the other parties, even the Greens ffs.

What interests me is that this rise of the first truly national (stretching a point admittedly) emergent party in generations, basically since the Labour party beginning last century* is having a destabilising effect, and the inability and ridiculously amateur responses of the political classes to respond has been distinctly amusing.

• *Don't count the formation of the SDP as they were senior splitters for want of a better term. More complicated that that but another discussion.

[King Cnut]

FiF said:

Just for the record, rolling reminder, it may seem like it at times, but not a UKIP supporter. Yes they do have some stances which I wholly support. Others not support, others where neither here nor there and some where can see where coming from but not sure how it could be implemented in practise.

I can say the same for all the other parties, even the Greens ffs.

What interests me is that this rise of the first truly national (stretching a point admittedly) emergent party in generations, basically since the Labour party beginning last century* is having a destabilising effect, and the inability and ridiculously amateur responses of the political classes to respond has been distinctly amusing.

• *Don't count the formation of the SDP as they were senior splitters for want of a better term. More complicated that that but another discussion.

Greens. http://greenparty.org.uk/news/2014/10/27/yougov-&#...

Their support tends to be more evenly distributed across all constituencies. I'm not a Green supporter.

[Scuffers]

vonuber said:

So UKIP wants to slash the licence fee for the bbc? To what level? And why?

I've never understood this outrage over the licence fee, it's fantastic value for money and makes for unique programming across a massive range of interests and views.
Why ukip would want to destroy such a key British institution is beyond me.

to be fair, I used to feel the same..

problem now is that the BBC is into everything, for example, radio 1 is only there to compete with the commercial stations, is that really what the BBC is there for?

you could argue the same for most of the radio output, and a lot of the TV channels too, BBC have already given up any serious interest in national sports, and are basically spending more and more money on importing shows or buying franchises for shows.

don't get me wrong, doing stuff like Strictly whilst not my thing, it's exactly what they are there for, paying £50M to import the 'Voice' just to compete with X factor is dumb, they should be doing stuff that the commercial stations can't/won't.

on the other side, Top gear, costs naff all to make relative to what the payback is, yet they can't help themselves poking sticks at it every five minutes.

things like covering the Olympics they did brilliantly, as a national broadcaster.

then we get to the news/current affairs, sorry but the entire editorial staff need to be sacked, the lefty bias is just laughable now, even the presenters look embarrassed.

Way I see it, they should go back to 2 TV and 3/4 radio stations, paid for by general taxation (you only have to see just how expensive running TV licencing (with Crapita) is to realise it would be simpler and cheaper all round to just pay for it by grant).

Ban it from getting any income from the EU and other such political bodies, make it run as a commercial enterprise subsidising output by selling programmes (like TG etc). and force it to publish proper accounts.

get rid of the BBC trust, have a proper commercially appointed board of directors with personal responsibility for their actions, no political appointments.

[BooHoo]

Scuffers said:

to be fair, I used to feel the same..

problem now is that the BBC is into everything, for example, radio 1 is only there to compete with the commercial stations, is that really what the BBC is there for?

you could argue the same for most of the radio output, and a lot of the TV channels too, BBC have already given up any serious interest in national sports, and are basically spending more and more money on importing shows or buying franchises for shows.

don't get me wrong, doing stuff like Strictly whilst not my thing, it's exactly what they are there for, paying £50M to import the 'Voice' just to compete with X factor is dumb, they should be doing stuff that the commercial stations can't/won't.

on the other side, Top gear, costs naff all to make relative to what the payback is, yet they can't help themselves poking sticks at it every five minutes.

things like covering the Olympics they did brilliantly, as a national broadcaster.

then we get to the news/current affairs, sorry but the entire editorial staff need to be sacked, the lefty bias is just laughable now, even the presenters look embarrassed.

Way I see it, they should go back to 2 TV and 3/4 radio stations, paid for by general taxation (you only have to see just how expensive running TV licencing (with Crapita) is to realise it would be simpler and cheaper all round to just pay for it by grant).

Ban it from getting any income from the EU and other such political bodies, make it run as a commercial enterprise subsidising output by selling programmes (like TG etc). and force it to publish proper accounts.

get rid of the BBC trust, have a proper commercially appointed board of directors with personal responsibility for their actions, no political appointments

Absolutely spot on.

[jogon]

Very much so and they need to do something about the ghastly wage bill..

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/revealed-the-bbc...

"The BBC pays 91 of its senior staff more than the Prime Minister and 11 earn double his salary, it was revealed today"