The RAF, or Crab Air as they are not quite affectionately known*, grew out of the old Royal Flying Corps and the Royal Naval Air Service. I expect that they chose the term squadron for their standard unit because it was too small (12 aircraft) to be a regiment but too big to be a company, plus they had delusions of grandeur (knights of the sky and all that stuff). Frankly who cares what the Crabs think or do - they haven't shot down an enemy aeroplane since 1945 and their primary objective is to preserve the RAF and to hell with the County's defence needs. They couldn't even close the runway at Port Stanley.
So, they didn't shoot down any Argentine aeroplanes during the Falklands War?
I thought RAF pilots flew from the carriers.
Really and truly the RAF have not shot down an enemy aeroplane since 1945.
They have however shot down a friendly aircraft. The details escape me at the moment, but from memory think it was an F4 Phantom, which took out a Jaguar, with a sidewinder. The Jag pilot ejected safely.
Ukip failed to see the funny side of a parody account about a fake town impersonating them on Twitter. MEP David Coburn was eager to ensure his followers weren’t fooled by the @Trumpton_Ukip account and urged his followers to block or report it.
A spate of fake Ukip Twitter accounts have emerged this week, with the Eurosceptic party claiming to be the victim of “a dirty tricks campaign”.
Mr Coburn has clearly never watched popular children’s TV show Trumpton, which was first aired on the BBC in the 1960s.
UKIP Trumpton say its number of followers has quadrupled since Mr Coburn’s tweet.
You'd love Trumpton - those were the days eh ?
I remember it vaguely... it's funny how the you use the same thought process and apply the same lazy stereotypes of any UKIP supporter that people would associate with an old school racist/sexist bigot, but probably don't realise you are doing it... its just the same thing with a different target.. at least it makes you laugh I suppose
"Take my mother in Law.. I wish some c*nt would.." boom boom
What's sexist or racist about Trumpton? You need thicker skin if you are going to stand in the GE.
Nothing is. What I am saying is that in light of several other fake UKIP accounts that are spouting racist and homophobic rubbish to try and smear the party, its only sensible to point out when another fake account pops up... all the fake ones start off by posting "safe" stuff and after a week or so start the bile, so how would anyone know this one would be different? Doesn't matter that its not a real place.. if someone can be bothered to go to the trouble of setting it up, theyre obv as much as a helmet as the bloke doing the other ones
There is now way anyone under 35ish would know what Trumpton is, so many people who dont look closely at these things could think it really is UKIP..
@tnewtondunn: YouGov/Sun poll tonight: no Autumn Statement bounce for Coalition. Libs 5th + Greens high again. LAB 32%, CON 31%, UKIP 15%, GRN 8%, LD 7%.
The question is when was this poll conducted ...... before or after the Autumn statement?
If it follows YouGov's normal schedule, it began at 5pm yesterday and finished at 3pm today
Those polled yesterday are unlikely to have had a detailed grasp of the Chancellor's proposals. Unfortunately there's no Sun/YouGov poll tomorrow, so we may have to wait for the Sundays to gauge the true impact (if any).
Noting the Mirror front page, has any MP ever been described as a junior MP?
In the Mirror if it's a Tory who is accused he will be a senior MP. If it's a Labour MP he will not be on the front page and probably not be mentioned at all.
Peter Does the average voter ever have a detailed knowledge of the Chancellor's proposals? First impressions normally stick on budgets, autumn statements etc and the conclusion is not much change, Osborne neither had a disaster nor an electorally popular one, not surprising considering it was basically a statement of another Parliament of more austerity with a few sweeteners into the mix
@tnewtondunn: YouGov/Sun poll tonight: no Autumn Statement bounce for Coalition. Libs 5th + Greens high again. LAB 32%, CON 31%, UKIP 15%, GRN 8%, LD 7%.
The question is when was this poll conducted ...... before or after the Autumn statement?
If it follows YouGov's normal schedule, it began at 5pm yesterday and finished at 3pm today
Those polled yesterday are unlikely to have had a detailed grasp of the Chancellor's proposals. Unfortunately there's no Sun/YouGov poll tomorrow, so we may have to wait for the Sundays to gauge the true impact (if any).
The Sunday Times YouGov poll started at 5pm today and ends tomorrow at 3pm.
The Opinium poll for the Observer will have straddled the Autumn Statement.
The ICM and Ipsos-Mori phone polls should be going into the field tomorrow and end on Sunday.
Mr Horsley, who has had a maintenance contract with Ambrosia in Devon for more than 10 years, said: "I think it's like blackmail. "What they are saying is 'unless you pay this money, you can't do the work'." He has decided not to pay and risk losing the contract. "I'm just a layman but I can't see how that is right."
Peter Does the average voter ever have a detailed knowledge of the Chancellor's proposals? First impressions normally stick on budgets, autumn statements etc and the conclusion is not much change, Osborne neither had a disaster nor an electorally popular one, not surprising considering it was basically a statement of another Parliament of more austerity with a few sweeteners into the mix
You're probably right but we need another couple of polls to be sure.
Good on Newsnight for focusing on one of the big stories from yesterday's spending review, the forecast for increasing household debt. What makes the OBR think this is going to happen? Why have they kept predicting increases in household debt that have never materialised? This needs an explanation. It starts to look like the OBR is doing its best to provide growth figures for the government by any means necessary, never mind how likely it actually is to happen.
The RAF, or Crab Air as they are not quite affectionately known*, grew out of the old Royal Flying Corps and the Royal Naval Air Service. I expect that they chose the term squadron for their standard unit because it was too small (12 aircraft) to be a regiment but too big to be a company, plus they had delusions of grandeur (knights of the sky and all that stuff). Frankly who cares what the Crabs think or do - they haven't shot down an enemy aeroplane since 1945 and their primary objective is to preserve the RAF and to hell with the County's defence needs. They couldn't even close the runway at Port Stanley.
So, they didn't shoot down any Argentine aeroplanes during the Falklands War?
I thought RAF pilots flew from the carriers.
RAF pilots did fly from the carriers in the Falklands war but they flew ground attack versions of the Harrier and were not engaged in air combat. The Sea harriers, which did shoot down enemy aeroplanes, were all Fleet Air Arm, i.e. Royal Navy.
In Korea a couple of RAF pilots did shoot down enemy aeroplanes but those pilots were on exchange to the USA and were flying American aircraft under American direction. There were British aerial victories in Korea but again they were won by RN Pilots flying from carriers.
Really and truly the RAF have not shot down an enemy aeroplane since 1945.
@tnewtondunn: YouGov/Sun poll tonight: no Autumn Statement bounce for Coalition. Libs 5th + Greens high again. LAB 32%, CON 31%, UKIP 15%, GRN 8%, LD 7%.
The question is when was this poll conducted ...... before or after the Autumn statement?
If it follows YouGov's normal schedule, it began at 5pm yesterday and finished at 3pm today
Those polled yesterday are unlikely to have had a detailed grasp of the Chancellor's proposals. Unfortunately there's no Sun/YouGov poll tomorrow, so we may have to wait for the Sundays to gauge the true impact (if any).
The Sunday Times YouGov poll started at 5pm today and ends tomorrow at 3pm.
The Opinium poll for the Observer will have straddled the Autumn Statement.
The ICM and Ipsos-Mori phone polls should be going into the field tomorrow and end on Sunday.
Plus there should be a Populus poll tomorrow .... Yes?
@tnewtondunn: YouGov/Sun poll tonight: no Autumn Statement bounce for Coalition. Libs 5th + Greens high again. LAB 32%, CON 31%, UKIP 15%, GRN 8%, LD 7%.
The question is when was this poll conducted ...... before or after the Autumn statement?
If it follows YouGov's normal schedule, it began at 5pm yesterday and finished at 3pm today
Those polled yesterday are unlikely to have had a detailed grasp of the Chancellor's proposals. Unfortunately there's no Sun/YouGov poll tomorrow, so we may have to wait for the Sundays to gauge the true impact (if any).
The Sunday Times YouGov poll started at 5pm today and ends tomorrow at 3pm.
The Opinium poll for the Observer will have straddled the Autumn Statement.
The ICM and Ipsos-Mori phone polls should be going into the field tomorrow and end on Sunday.
Plus there should be a Populus poll tomorrow .... Yes?
Peter Will see at the weekend, but this yougov will have been taken over 24 hours all post statement and was very little to polls at the beginning of the week, I would be astonished if the weekend polls showed much different
The RAF, or Crab Air as they are not quite affectionately known*, grew out of the old Royal Flying Corps and the Royal Naval Air Service. I expect that they chose the term squadron for their standard unit because it was too small (12 aircraft) to be a regiment but too big to be a company, plus they had delusions of grandeur (knights of the sky and all that stuff). Frankly who cares what the Crabs think or do - they haven't shot down an enemy aeroplane since 1945 and their primary objective is to preserve the RAF and to hell with the County's defence needs. They couldn't even close the runway at Port Stanley.
So, they didn't shoot down any Argentine aeroplanes during the Falklands War?
I thought RAF pilots flew from the carriers.
RAF pilots did fly from the carriers in the Falklands war but they flew ground attack versions of the Harrier and were not engaged in air combat. The Sea harriers, which did shoot down enemy aeroplanes, were all Fleet Air Arm, i.e. Royal Navy.
In Korea a couple of RAF pilots did shoot down enemy aeroplanes but those pilots were on exchange to the USA and were flying American aircraft under American direction. There were British aerial victories in Korea but again they were won by RN Pilots flying from carriers.
Really and truly the RAF have not shot down an enemy aeroplane since 1945.
Good on Newsnight for focusing on one of the big stories from yesterday's spending review, the forecast for increasing household debt. What makes the OBR think this is going to happen? Why have they kept predicting increases in household debt that have never materialised? This needs an explanation. It starts to look like the OBR is doing its best to provide growth figures for the government by any means necessary, never mind how likely it actually is to happen.
Oh! Sorry, is this the OBR that Osborne keeps inferring is the "Gold Standard" of government statistics?
Based on recent polls, the Greens appear to be quite close to reaching critical mass, certainly in terms of competing with the LibDems. They should really be pushing as hard as poss to stand in another 50-100 seats, not with any chance of winning of course, but to put markers down for 2020 and in a good many cases by saving their deposits
Isam you make a good point questioning whether UKIP could have a decent excuse if they lose Aveley and Uplands. I'm a Ukipper and I'll be the first to admit our record when it comes to holding our own seats in by elections is appalling.
For once we're in total agreement. Religion is no excuse for obnoxious sexism. UKIP should kick him out.
It's not really being sexist is it? It's not as if he wont touch a woman because he thinks they are unworthy or of lesser value than men
No, it's just assuming that providing women with basic professional courtesies is an inherently sexual act, as if that's what women are there for. It's obnoxious and its sexist, and the vast majority of British Jews have long moved past such antiquated beliefs to fit in with modern Western society.
Das Boot on Film4 now if anyone interested, though will not have time to watch it all
I've seen the same few minutes of the film about 10 times, namely the bit where the captain gets drunk. Or maybe the whole film features him being drunk.
For once we're in total agreement. Religion is no excuse for obnoxious sexism. UKIP should kick him out.
What? Kick out an Orthodox Jew for being exactly that?
Perhaps select him as a candidate for Salford or Golders Green, but surely there's room in UKIP for all kinds.
Should they make room for Scientologists that believe psychologists are evil as part of their religious beliefs? I'm fed up of religion being used as a "get out of jail free" card for stuff that, rightly, isn't considered acceptable for the irreligious. "Kicking out" is too harsh, but we shouldn't let him represent the party as a candidate.
For once we're in total agreement. Religion is no excuse for obnoxious sexism. UKIP should kick him out.
It's not really being sexist is it? It's not as if he wont touch a woman because he thinks they are unworthy or of lesser value than men
No, it's just assuming that providing women with basic professional courtesies is an inherently sexual act, as if that's what women are there for. It's obnoxious and its sexist, and the vast majority of British Jews have long moved past such antiquated beliefs to fit in with modern Western society.
It is not for you to determine what is or is not fit for Jews to believe in.
Stop telling people how to run their own religions.
For once we're in total agreement. Religion is no excuse for obnoxious sexism. UKIP should kick him out.
It's not really being sexist is it? It's not as if he wont touch a woman because he thinks they are unworthy or of lesser value than men
No, it's just assuming that providing women with basic professional courtesies is an inherently sexual act, as if that's what women are there for. It's obnoxious and its sexist, and the vast majority of British Jews have long moved past such antiquated beliefs to fit in with modern Western society.
Don't see that it matters really. If he doesn't want to touch any woman apart from his wife why should he? Who cares?
Prepare to be disappointed. Papers love to ramp (especially when it comes to polls)!
It certainly won't be a poll. My money would be on an interview, probably sports-related, possibly cricket, just conceivably Alastair Cook ..... "Why I'm resigning as England Captain". Can I get a bet on in time?
For once we're in total agreement. Religion is no excuse for obnoxious sexism. UKIP should kick him out.
It's not really being sexist is it? It's not as if he wont touch a woman because he thinks they are unworthy or of lesser value than men
No, it's just assuming that providing women with basic professional courtesies is an inherently sexual act, as if that's what women are there for. It's obnoxious and its sexist, and the vast majority of British Jews have long moved past such antiquated beliefs to fit in with modern Western society.
It is not for you to determine what is or is not fit for Jews to believe in.
Stop telling people how to run their own religions.
I'm not telling them how run their own religion. I'm just saying how we should run our party, and what sort of people with what sort of views we should allow to stand for it.
AndyJS A lot of drinking now at the beginning, the film goes on for about 4 hours, a lot of dark scenes under the waves , I remember watching it in German lessons at school
Based on recent polls, the Greens appear to be quite close to reaching critical mass, certainly in terms of competing with the LibDems. They should really be pushing as hard as poss to stand in another 50-100 seats, not with any chance of winning of course, but to put markers down for 2020 and in a good many cases by saving their deposits
Based on council by elections since June there are not even 100 council seats the Greens have a chance of fighting competitively . Their vote share overall is below 4% . Whatever some pollsters are measuring it is not real Green support in the polling booth .
For once we're in total agreement. Religion is no excuse for obnoxious sexism. UKIP should kick him out.
It's not really being sexist is it? It's not as if he wont touch a woman because he thinks they are unworthy or of lesser value than men
No, it's just assuming that providing women with basic professional courtesies is an inherently sexual act, as if that's what women are there for. It's obnoxious and its sexist, and the vast majority of British Jews have long moved past such antiquated beliefs to fit in with modern Western society.
Don't see that it matters really. If he doesn't want to touch any woman apart from his wife why should he? Who cares?
Most of the women that he snubs when it comes to basic business courtesies, I imagine.
Prepare to be disappointed. Papers love to ramp (especially when it comes to polls)!
It certainly won't be a poll. My money would be on an interview, probably sports-related, possibly cricket, just conceivably Alastair Cook ..... "Why I'm resigning as England Captain". Can I get a bet on in time?
Yeah Ididn't think it would be a poll, just remembering previous tweets from other papers hyping a poll which showed margin of error movements.
For once we're in total agreement. Religion is no excuse for obnoxious sexism. UKIP should kick him out.
What? Kick out an Orthodox Jew for being exactly that?
Perhaps select him as a candidate for Salford or Golders Green, but surely there's room in UKIP for all kinds.
Should they make room for Scientologists that believe psychologists are evil as part of their religious beliefs? I'm fed up of religion being used as a "get out of jail free" card for stuff that, rightly, isn't considered acceptable for the irreligious. "Kicking out" is too harsh, but we shouldn't let him represent the party as a candidate.
Yes, for Scientologists. UKIP recently stood up for badly treated Jehovah's Witnesses in Southampton.
UKIP has picked up a lot of members who are religious, mainly because they have been badly treated and none of the mainstream parties wish to champion them.
I think he would be fine as a candidate in Salford (he stood in the North West) or St. John's Wood, Stamford Hill, Golders Green, etc.
For once we're in total agreement. Religion is no excuse for obnoxious sexism. UKIP should kick him out.
It's not really being sexist is it? It's not as if he wont touch a woman because he thinks they are unworthy or of lesser value than men
No, it's just assuming that providing women with basic professional courtesies is an inherently sexual act, as if that's what women are there for. It's obnoxious and its sexist, and the vast majority of British Jews have long moved past such antiquated beliefs to fit in with modern Western society.
Don't see that it matters really. If he doesn't want to touch any woman apart from his wife why should he? Who cares?
Most of the women that he snubs when it comes to basic business courtesies, I imagine.
Doesn't hurt to tolerate someone's beliefs if they aren't doing any harm
The RAF, or Crab Air as they are not quite affectionately known*, grew out of the old Royal Flying Corps and the Royal Naval Air Service. I expect that they chose the term squadron for their standard unit because it was too small (12 aircraft) to be a regiment but too big to be a company, plus they had delusions of grandeur (knights of the sky and all that stuff). Frankly who cares what the Crabs think or do - they haven't shot down an enemy aeroplane since 1945 and their primary objective is to preserve the RAF and to hell with the County's defence needs. They couldn't even close the runway at Port Stanley.
So, they didn't shoot down any Argentine aeroplanes during the Falklands War?
I thought RAF pilots flew from the carriers.
RAF pilots did fly from the carriers in the Falklands war but they flew ground attack versions of the Harrier and were not engaged in air combat. The Sea harriers, which did shoot down enemy aeroplanes, were all Fleet Air Arm, i.e. Royal Navy.
In Korea a couple of RAF pilots did shoot down enemy aeroplanes but those pilots were on exchange to the USA and were flying American aircraft under American direction. There were British aerial victories in Korea but again they were won by RN Pilots flying from carriers.
Really and truly the RAF have not shot down an enemy aeroplane since 1945.
Er! Read the extract, did you? May have been RAF but was seconded to Fleet Air Arm.
Just like in WW2, Fleet Air Arm pilots, along with the Poles, Czechs, French, Norwegians, Commonwealth pilots and even the Israeli went into Fighter Command and fought in the Battle of Britain. Funnily enough, found out recently that 303 squadron (Polish) shot down more planes than all the Brit Squadrons put together. Didn't like the Germans for some reason.
PS: still remember the film of Argie Skyhawk chasing the Harrier which went up, the Skyhawk went straight on with a missile in it's exhaust. Oh, if only we still had such planes available.....
Well it's not related to Mark Pritchard, whom we must not mention his adventure today which might have the most serious affect on his constituency in May.
For once we're in total agreement. Religion is no excuse for obnoxious sexism. UKIP should kick him out.
It's not really being sexist is it? It's not as if he wont touch a woman because he thinks they are unworthy or of lesser value than men
No, it's just assuming that providing women with basic professional courtesies is an inherently sexual act, as if that's what women are there for. It's obnoxious and its sexist, and the vast majority of British Jews have long moved past such antiquated beliefs to fit in with modern Western society.
Don't see that it matters really. If he doesn't want to touch any woman apart from his wife why should he? Who cares?
Most of the women that he snubs when it comes to basic business courtesies, I imagine.
I suppose it all depends on how he greets the women he meets. Plenty of people dislike shaking hands , but still manage to be polite.
For once we're in total agreement. Religion is no excuse for obnoxious sexism. UKIP should kick him out.
What? Kick out an Orthodox Jew for being exactly that?
Perhaps select him as a candidate for Salford or Golders Green, but surely there's room in UKIP for all kinds.
Should they make room for Scientologists that believe psychologists are evil as part of their religious beliefs? I'm fed up of religion being used as a "get out of jail free" card for stuff that, rightly, isn't considered acceptable for the irreligious. "Kicking out" is too harsh, but we shouldn't let him represent the party as a candidate.
Yes, for Scientologists. UKIP recently stood up for badly treated Jehovah's Witnesses in Southampton.
UKIP has picked up a lot of members who are religious, mainly because they have been badly treated and none of the mainstream parties wish to champion them.
I think he would be fine as a candidate in Salford (he stood in the North West) or St. John's Wood, Stamford Hill, Golders Green, etc.
Incidentally, MikeK, of this parish, is Jewish.
I'm not sure what happened regarding Jehovah's Witnesses in Southampton, but it's entirely right that people are stood up for when they're being unfairly treated, even if we think their views in other areas aren't that nice. I'm pretty sure most Sunni Muslims in Syria have views I find very intolerant, but I still think it's wrong when they're being butchered by the Assad regime and people should speak out, or more, for their protection.
However, that said, when we select candidates as a party, we should select people who are egalitarians and don't treat people differently because of how they were born. People should be judged on their views and actions, not on their sex or skin colour.
For once we're in total agreement. Religion is no excuse for obnoxious sexism. UKIP should kick him out.
What? Kick out an Orthodox Jew for being exactly that?
Perhaps select him as a candidate for Salford or Golders Green, but surely there's room in UKIP for all kinds.
Should they make room for Scientologists that believe psychologists are evil as part of their religious beliefs? I'm fed up of religion being used as a "get out of jail free" card for stuff that, rightly, isn't considered acceptable for the irreligious. "Kicking out" is too harsh, but we shouldn't let him represent the party as a candidate.
Yes, for Scientologists. UKIP recently stood up for badly treated Jehovah's Witnesses in Southampton.
UKIP has picked up a lot of members who are religious, mainly because they have been badly treated and none of the mainstream parties wish to champion them.
I think he would be fine as a candidate in Salford (he stood in the North West) or St. John's Wood, Stamford Hill, Golders Green, etc.
Incidentally, MikeK, of this parish, is Jewish.
However, that said, when we select candidates as a party, we should select people who are egalitarians and don't treat people differently because of how they were born. People should be judged on their views and actions, not on their sex or skin colour.
Clearly true on skin colour, but there is precisely zero evidence of this in this case.
As for sex, clearly a laughable suggestion. There are occasions too numerous to mention when men and women are treated differently or separately. Sport, for example.
For once we're in total agreement. Religion is no excuse for obnoxious sexism. UKIP should kick him out.
What? Kick out an Orthodox Jew for being exactly that?
Perhaps select him as a candidate for Salford or Golders Green, but surely there's room in UKIP for all kinds.
Should they make room for Scientologists that believe psychologists are evil as part of their religious beliefs? I'm fed up of religion being used as a "get out of jail free" card for stuff that, rightly, isn't considered acceptable for the irreligious. "Kicking out" is too harsh, but we shouldn't let him represent the party as a candidate.
Yes, for Scientologists. UKIP recently stood up for badly treated Jehovah's Witnesses in Southampton.
UKIP has picked up a lot of members who are religious, mainly because they have been badly treated and none of the mainstream parties wish to champion them.
I think he would be fine as a candidate in Salford (he stood in the North West) or St. John's Wood, Stamford Hill, Golders Green, etc.
Incidentally, MikeK, of this parish, is Jewish.
I'm not sure what happened regarding Jehovah's Witnesses in Southampton, but it's entirely right that people are stood up for when they're being unfairly treated, even if we think their views in other areas aren't that nice. I'm pretty sure most Sunni Muslims in Syria have views I find very intolerant, but I still think it's wrong when they're being butchered by the Assad regime and people should speak out, or more, for their protection.
However, that said, when we select candidates as a party, we should select people who are egalitarians and don't treat people differently because of how they were born. People should be judged on their views and actions, not on their sex or skin colour.
Sorry I am not having that.
We don't force Muslim women to take their veils off in front of every man like they do their husbands, and I wouldn't ask them to. Why should we force Jews to touch women other than their wives if their religion forbids it? It's not against the law.
We don't ask Sikhs to remove their turbans when they go into places where we would expect headwear to be removed.. You've got to give people a bit of leeway. It seems like you just have it in for religion and take aggressive stances on behalf of any cause if religion is the enemy, even when no harm is being done
For once we're in total agreement. Religion is no excuse for obnoxious sexism. UKIP should kick him out.
What? Kick out an Orthodox Jew for being exactly that?
Perhaps select him as a candidate for Salford or Golders Green, but surely there's room in UKIP for all kinds.
....
I'm not sure what happened regarding Jehovah's Witnesses in Southampton, but it's entirely right that people are stood up for when they're being unfairly treated, even if we think their views in other areas aren't that nice. I'm pretty sure most Sunni Muslims in Syria have views I find very intolerant, but I still think it's wrong when they're being butchered by the Assad regime and people should speak out, or more, for their protection.
However, that said, when we select candidates as a party, we should select people who are egalitarians and don't treat people differently because of how they were born. People should be judged on their views and actions, not on their sex or skin colour.
So why is Janice Atkinson still a UKIP MEP? Why is UKIP allied with a Polish neo nazi?
Britain Elects @britainelects · 41s 42 seconds ago UKIP HOLD Aveley & Uplands (Thurrock).
Hooray!
Isn't it great when racist tactics backfire?
Looks good for the GE.
UKIP vote share down around 6%
UKIP 747 Con 520 Lab 338 Ind 217
A small drop due to an independent standing and taking some NOTA's.
The Labour vote share was up slightly despite an Independent standing
Well realistically they couldn't fall much further.
Yes they could and did in 2008 for example when the BNP were the UKIP lite alternative in this ward
So, still the cheap comparison between UKIP and the BNP, despite a part Turkish candidate winning for UKIP in Thurrock and a discussion on this board about a Jewish UKIP Euro candidate?
You are starting to look ridiculous, not merely desperate.
Scroll down and you'll see a contrasting article "Why naked Women Make Me Uncomfortable". At heart, I think quite a lot of radical feminists find the idea of sexual activity (at any rate, sexual activity between men and women) extremely distasteful. It's a very old belief reinvented in the modern world.
Peter, my oldest son was contacted via his mobile and took part in a Populus survey on Tuesday, his first ever political poll. He said he was also asked to rate a selection of politicians including Alex Salmond.
@tnewtondunn: YouGov/Sun poll tonight: no Autumn Statement bounce for Coalition. Libs 5th + Greens high again. LAB 32%, CON 31%, UKIP 15%, GRN 8%, LD 7%.
The question is when was this poll conducted ...... before or after the Autumn statement?
If it follows YouGov's normal schedule, it began at 5pm yesterday and finished at 3pm today
Those polled yesterday are unlikely to have had a detailed grasp of the Chancellor's proposals. Unfortunately there's no Sun/YouGov poll tomorrow, so we may have to wait for the Sundays to gauge the true impact (if any).
The Sunday Times YouGov poll started at 5pm today and ends tomorrow at 3pm.
The Opinium poll for the Observer will have straddled the Autumn Statement.
The ICM and Ipsos-Mori phone polls should be going into the field tomorrow and end on Sunday.
Plus there should be a Populus poll tomorrow .... Yes?
Comments
Edit, brief details here
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?60022-25-May-82-Phantom-shot-down-Jaguar-with-AIM9
EICIPM
There is now way anyone under 35ish would know what Trumpton is, so many people who dont look closely at these things could think it really is UKIP..
First ship to Peru for him!
BENEDICT CUMBERBATCH TO PLAY DOCTOR STRANGE
http://marvel.com/news/movies/23754/benedict_cumberbatch_to_play_doctor_strange
Plus he changed the lives on an indigenous English family.
And he's a brown skinned chap who keeps his head covered.
I wonder what the percentages would have been if the question had asked people's views on Murdoch. The Nation Speaks;
1. Do you think is a hypocrite? 2.Do you think he's a c*nt?
The Opinium poll for the Observer will have straddled the Autumn Statement.
The ICM and Ipsos-Mori phone polls should be going into the field tomorrow and end on Sunday.
Premier Foods accused over 'pay and stay' practice.
Mr Horsley, who has had a maintenance contract with Ambrosia in Devon for more than 10 years, said: "I think it's like blackmail.
"What they are saying is 'unless you pay this money, you can't do the work'."
He has decided not to pay and risk losing the contract.
"I'm just a layman but I can't see how that is right."
This cannot be justified in my opinion.
Then we'd shoot him, and mount his head on a wooden shield in Whites.
Except if he goes to Thurrock where the Tories will call him Pedro
http://www.wnblog.co.uk/2012/04/david-morgan-raf-officer-and-poet-relives-his-experiences-during-the-falklands-war/
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/540640156911677440
www.youtube.com/watch?v=j66XfN5acX4
Perhaps select him as a candidate for Salford or Golders Green, but surely there's room in UKIP for all kinds.
Cooper on QT comparing the mass immigration of the last 20 years with the slow immigration of the last 1000.. "British values" "Fairness"
BULLSHIT!
...and now its the Daily Mail's fault for mentioning it
Turned out it was David Beckham backing better together
Stop telling people how to run their own religions.
Just emailed them to confirm they have lost a customer.
UKIP has picked up a lot of members who are religious, mainly because they have been badly treated and none of the mainstream parties wish to champion them.
I think he would be fine as a candidate in Salford (he stood in the North West) or St. John's Wood, Stamford Hill, Golders Green, etc.
Incidentally, MikeK, of this parish, is Jewish.
UKIP HOLD Aveley & Uplands (Thurrock).
UKIP HOLD Aveley & Uplands (Thurrock).
Aveley & Uplands (Thurrock) result:
UKIP - 41.0% (-6.2)
CON - 28.5% (-1.1)
LAB - 18.6% (+2.4)
IND - 11.9% (+11.9)
Not bad for UKIP, they lost mainly to independents.
Isn't it great when racist tactics backfire?
Looks good for the GE.
Just like in WW2, Fleet Air Arm pilots, along with the Poles, Czechs, French, Norwegians, Commonwealth pilots and even the Israeli went into Fighter Command and fought in the Battle of Britain. Funnily enough, found out recently that 303 squadron (Polish) shot down more planes than all the Brit Squadrons put together. Didn't like the Germans for some reason.
PS: still remember the film of Argie Skyhawk chasing the Harrier which went up, the Skyhawk went straight on with a missile in it's exhaust. Oh, if only we still had such planes available.....
UKIP 747 Con 520 Lab 338 Ind 217
I'll get me coat pyjamas.
Correction it is a Lab gain from MIF
Lab 347 UKIP 225 TUSC 29
However, that said, when we select candidates as a party, we should select people who are egalitarians and don't treat people differently because of how they were born. People should be judged on their views and actions, not on their sex or skin colour.
Labour HOLD Longholme (Rossendale).
And that concludes this night's by-elections.
Interested to see the Pritchard developments if any tomorrow.
Goodnight.
Want to back Labour in Rotherham at the best price available?
As for sex, clearly a laughable suggestion. There are occasions too numerous to mention when men and women are treated differently or separately. Sport, for example.
We don't force Muslim women to take their veils off in front of every man like they do their husbands, and I wouldn't ask them to. Why should we force Jews to touch women other than their wives if their religion forbids it? It's not against the law.
We don't ask Sikhs to remove their turbans when they go into places where we would expect headwear to be removed.. You've got to give people a bit of leeway. It seems like you just have it in for religion and take aggressive stances on behalf of any cause if religion is the enemy, even when no harm is being done
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/11272038/Britain-to-pay-EU-extra-100-million-a-year.html
And the WSJ reckons that the Google tax will be blocked by EU rules:
http://online.wsj.com/articles/britain-and-the-google-tax-1417653509
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex/11270359/Porn-laws-Banning-spanking-is-bonkers-and-downright-frightening.html
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102237685
You are starting to look ridiculous, not merely desperate.