politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Reminder: The PB Yorkshire gathering – Flying Duck Ilkley M

Neil · July 2014

I think the fact that we are less than a year from the GE and UKIP doesnt appear to have a final list of target seats says a lot. They are definitely more organised than last time (I doubt anyone will be flying high above ridiculously chosen target seats next year) but sometimes they give a sense of wanting to sabotage their own chances next year.

isam · July 2014

TheScreamingEagles said:

isam said:

Neil said:

isam said:

NickPalmer said:
Didn't think today's canvass showed any particular movement - I'm a bit sceptical of the various recent movements in both directions, and think Labour is stable at 3-4 points ahead, though the Tories have got a bit back from UKIP.

I had a classic flaky "promise" today: "I really don't like Labour. But after something Maggie did in the 1970s I swore I'd never vote Tory again, though I can't now remember what it was. So I voted LibDem for 30 years but in government they're rubbish. UKIP and Greens are nuts. I'm desperate, so I suppose I'll have to vote for you. Hang on! Will there be a Monster Raving Loony candidate?"

Should we knock him up on polling day? Hmm.

A Palmer canvassing anecdote featuring a good natured floating voter that has opted for Labour with UKIP on the slide?

Get right out of town?!!
Particularly bad news for UKIP seeing as it is one of their target seats.
No it isn't (one of their target seats)
Oh yes it is.

http://www.nottinghampost.com/Nigel-Farage-8217-s-UKIP-target-Broxtowe-seat/story-21147345-detail/story.html

Hmmm I wouldn't have thought it will be one of the top 20 target seats for UKIP. The Nottingham Post article doesn't say that it is either

Flightpath · July 2014

Toms said:

Flightpath said:

AndyJS said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
Papers going big on the story we need to be careful about...but already been dubbed "Parliament Child Sex Scandal" by the newspapers.

I wouldn't like to have any money on the GE if more information starts to come to light, where it starts, goes and ends up, who knows. Papers already joining various dots from historic known individuals, PIE, etc etc etc.

Indy - Exclusive: Leon Brittan questioned by police over rape allegation"

Telegraph - Parliament child sex scandal: 114 lost files"
If this story has legs I think any hope on the part of the established parties that UKIP's share might drop below 10% by May next year will evaporate.

AndyJS said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
Papers going big on the story we need to be careful about...but already been dubbed "Parliament Child Sex Scandal" by the newspapers.

I wouldn't like to have any money on the GE if more information starts to come to light, where it starts, goes and ends up, who knows. Papers already joining various dots from historic known individuals, PIE, etc etc etc.

Indy - Exclusive: Leon Brittan questioned by police over rape allegation"

Telegraph - Parliament child sex scandal: 114 lost files"
If this story has legs I think any hope on the part of the established parties that UKIP's share might drop below 10% by May next year will evaporate.

AndyJS said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
Papers going big on the story we need to be careful about...but already been dubbed "Parliament Child Sex Scandal" by the newspapers.

I wouldn't like to have any money on the GE if more information starts to come to light, where it starts, goes and ends up, who knows. Papers already joining various dots from historic known individuals, PIE, etc etc etc.

Indy - Exclusive: Leon Brittan questioned by police over rape allegation"

Telegraph - Parliament child sex scandal: 114 lost files"
If this story has legs I think any hope on the part of the established parties that UKIP's share might drop below 10% by May next year will evaporate.
A story as yet without any visible evidence from 1983? Why should this benefit UKIP - for all any of us know there may be historic or present day UKIPippers involved.
To have one duplicate might be considered misfortune. To have two duplicates might be considered carelessness.

For who? Have you nothing better to do than comment on the vararies of silly technologies? Perhaps you can spend time explaining to the assembled masses how pressing one click gives a multiple response. Because I don't know.

MrJones · July 2014

Broxtowe was on a list but likely just to wind up Soubry.

TheScreamingEagles · July 2014

isam said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

isam said:

Neil said:

isam said:

NickPalmer said:
Didn't think today's canvass showed any particular movement - I'm a bit sceptical of the various recent movements in both directions, and think Labour is stable at 3-4 points ahead, though the Tories have got a bit back from UKIP.

I had a classic flaky "promise" today: "I really don't like Labour. But after something Maggie did in the 1970s I swore I'd never vote Tory again, though I can't now remember what it was. So I voted LibDem for 30 years but in government they're rubbish. UKIP and Greens are nuts. I'm desperate, so I suppose I'll have to vote for you. Hang on! Will there be a Monster Raving Loony candidate?"

Should we knock him up on polling day? Hmm.

A Palmer canvassing anecdote featuring a good natured floating voter that has opted for Labour with UKIP on the slide?

Get right out of town?!!
Particularly bad news for UKIP seeing as it is one of their target seats.
No it isn't (one of their target seats)
Oh yes it is.

http://www.nottinghampost.com/Nigel-Farage-8217-s-UKIP-target-Broxtowe-seat/story-21147345-detail/story.html

Hmmm I wouldn't have thought it will be one of the top 20 target seats for UKIP. The Nottingham Post article doesn't say that it is either

See the Indy link below.

Neil · July 2014

isam said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

isam said:

Neil said:

isam said:

NickPalmer said:
Didn't think today's canvass showed any particular movement - I'm a bit sceptical of the various recent movements in both directions, and think Labour is stable at 3-4 points ahead, though the Tories have got a bit back from UKIP.

I had a classic flaky "promise" today: "I really don't like Labour. But after something Maggie did in the 1970s I swore I'd never vote Tory again, though I can't now remember what it was. So I voted LibDem for 30 years but in government they're rubbish. UKIP and Greens are nuts. I'm desperate, so I suppose I'll have to vote for you. Hang on! Will there be a Monster Raving Loony candidate?"

Should we knock him up on polling day? Hmm.

A Palmer canvassing anecdote featuring a good natured floating voter that has opted for Labour with UKIP on the slide?

Get right out of town?!!
Particularly bad news for UKIP seeing as it is one of their target seats.
No it isn't (one of their target seats)
Oh yes it is.

http://www.nottinghampost.com/Nigel-Farage-8217-s-UKIP-target-Broxtowe-seat/story-21147345-detail/story.html

Hmmm I wouldn't have thought it will be one of the top 20 target seats for UKIP. The Nottingham Post article doesn't say that it is either

There is sensible political strategy and then there is things Nigel Farage does.

AndyJS · July 2014

Neil said:
I think the fact that we are less than a year from the GE and UKIP doesnt appear to have a final list of target seats says a lot. They are definitely more organised than last time (I doubt anyone will be flying high above ridiculously chosen target seats next year) but sometimes they give a sense of wanting to sabotage their own chances next year.

Maybe it's a clever tactic to prevent anti-UKIP tactical voting.

isam · July 2014

TheScreamingEagles said:

isam said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

isam said:

Neil said:

isam said:

NickPalmer said:
Didn't think today's canvass showed any particular movement - I'm a bit sceptical of the various recent movements in both directions, and think Labour is stable at 3-4 points ahead, though the Tories have got a bit back from UKIP.

I had a classic flaky "promise" today: "I really don't like Labour. But after something Maggie did in the 1970s I swore I'd never vote Tory again, though I can't now remember what it was. So I voted LibDem for 30 years but in government they're rubbish. UKIP and Greens are nuts. I'm desperate, so I suppose I'll have to vote for you. Hang on! Will there be a Monster Raving Loony candidate?"

Should we knock him up on polling day? Hmm.

A Palmer canvassing anecdote featuring a good natured floating voter that has opted for Labour with UKIP on the slide?

Get right out of town?!!
Particularly bad news for UKIP seeing as it is one of their target seats.
No it isn't (one of their target seats)
Oh yes it is.

http://www.nottinghampost.com/Nigel-Farage-8217-s-UKIP-target-Broxtowe-seat/story-21147345-detail/story.html

Hmmm I wouldn't have thought it will be one of the top 20 target seats for UKIP. The Nottingham Post article doesn't say that it is either
See the Indy link below.

Oh ok maybe it is!

Well I wouldn't say that a Nick Palmer anecdote means its bad news for UKIP anyway. I reckon he only ever speaks to the same 2 or 3 people! They always say the same thing

Good news for the people of Broxtow then.. Soubry or Palmer? Id vote Lib Dem

Neil · July 2014

AndyJS said:

Neil said:
I think the fact that we are less than a year from the GE and UKIP doesnt appear to have a final list of target seats says a lot. They are definitely more organised than last time (I doubt anyone will be flying high above ridiculously chosen target seats next year) but sometimes they give a sense of wanting to sabotage their own chances next year.
Maybe it's a clever tactic to prevent anti-UKIP tactical voting.

Maybe they've chosen their target seats, got their candidates in place and are working them the way they need to be worked to have a chance of success and they are keeping it quiet for that very reason. I've not seen any commentary from any constituency that suggests that might be the case though (they could be just doing it very,very well).

isam · July 2014

AndyJS said:

Flightpath said:

AndyJS said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
Papers going big on the story we need to be careful about...but already been dubbed "Parliament Child Sex Scandal" by the newspapers.

I wouldn't like to have any money on the GE if more information starts to come to light, where it starts, goes and ends up, who knows. Papers already joining various dots from historic known individuals, PIE, etc etc etc.

Indy - Exclusive: Leon Brittan questioned by police over rape allegation"

Telegraph - Parliament child sex scandal: 114 lost files"
If this story has legs I think any hope on the part of the established parties that UKIP's share might drop below 10% by May next year will evaporate.

AndyJS said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
Papers going big on the story we need to be careful about...but already been dubbed "Parliament Child Sex Scandal" by the newspapers.

If this story has legs I think any hope on the part of the established parties that UKIP's share might drop below 10% by May next year will evaporate.

AndyJS said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
Papers going big on the story we need to be careful about...but already been dubbed "Parliament Child Sex Scandal" by the newspapers.

I wouldn't like to have any money on the GE if more information starts to come to light, where it starts, goes and ends up, who knows. Papers already joining various dots from historic known individuals, PIE, etc etc etc.

Indy - Exclusive: Leon Brittan questioned by police over rape allegation"

Telegraph - Parliament child sex scandal: 114 lost files"
If this story has legs I think any hope on the part of the established parties that UKIP's share might drop below 10% by May next year will evaporate.
A story as yet without any visible evidence from 1983? Why should this benefit UKIP - for all any of us know there may be historic or present day UKIPippers involved.
UKIP's main appeal is contempt with the established parties as a whole. Anything that accentuates that sentiment benefits the purples IMO.

When the other three parties are digging around for a UKIP councillor that said "poof" or once went to a NF meeting or once forgot to pay their tax bill, as they did at the Euros, UKIP may well be able to point to Westminster parties who once had, or still do have, a senior politician who abused kids, and other that covered it up

Revenge is a dish best served cold

TheScreamingEagles · July 2014

isam said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

isam said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

isam said:

Neil said:

isam said:

NickPalmer said:
Didn't think today's canvass showed any particular movement - I'm a bit sceptical of the various recent movements in both directions, and think Labour is stable at 3-4 points ahead, though the Tories have got a bit back from UKIP.

I had a classic flaky "promise" today: "I really don't like Labour. But after something Maggie did in the 1970s I swore I'd never vote Tory again, though I can't now remember what it was. So I voted LibDem for 30 years but in government they're rubbish. UKIP and Greens are nuts. I'm desperate, so I suppose I'll have to vote for you. Hang on! Will there be a Monster Raving Loony candidate?"

Should we knock him up on polling day? Hmm.

A Palmer canvassing anecdote featuring a good natured floating voter that has opted for Labour with UKIP on the slide?

Get right out of town?!!
Particularly bad news for UKIP seeing as it is one of their target seats.
No it isn't (one of their target seats)
Oh yes it is.

http://www.nottinghampost.com/Nigel-Farage-8217-s-UKIP-target-Broxtowe-seat/story-21147345-detail/story.html

Hmmm I wouldn't have thought it will be one of the top 20 target seats for UKIP. The Nottingham Post article doesn't say that it is either
See the Indy link below.
Oh ok maybe it is!

Well I wouldn't say that a Nick Palmer anecdote means its bad news for UKIP anyway. I reckon he only ever speaks to the same 2 or 3 people! They always say the same thing

Good news for the people of Broxtow then.. Soubry or Palmer? Id vote Lib Dem

In 2009 and 2010, many people mocked Nick Palmer's canvass returns, especially the Tories for Palmer segment Nick mentioned, but as the swing proved, Nick Palmer's returns were accurate.

Neil · July 2014

isam said:

AndyJS said:

Flightpath said:

AndyJS said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
Papers going big on the story we need to be careful about...but already been dubbed "Parliament Child Sex Scandal" by the newspapers.

I wouldn't like to have any money on the GE if more information starts to come to light, where it starts, goes and ends up, who knows. Papers already joining various dots from historic known individuals, PIE, etc etc etc.

Indy - Exclusive: Leon Brittan questioned by police over rape allegation"

Telegraph - Parliament child sex scandal: 114 lost files"
If this story has legs I think any hope on the part of the established parties that UKIP's share might drop below 10% by May next year will evaporate.

AndyJS said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
Papers going big on the story we need to be careful about...but already been dubbed "Parliament Child Sex Scandal" by the newspapers.

If this story has legs I think any hope on the part of the established parties that UKIP's share might drop below 10% by May next year will evaporate.

AndyJS said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
Papers going big on the story we need to be careful about...but already been dubbed "Parliament Child Sex Scandal" by the newspapers.

I wouldn't like to have any money on the GE if more information starts to come to light, where it starts, goes and ends up, who knows. Papers already joining various dots from historic known individuals, PIE, etc etc etc.

Indy - Exclusive: Leon Brittan questioned by police over rape allegation"

Telegraph - Parliament child sex scandal: 114 lost files"
If this story has legs I think any hope on the part of the established parties that UKIP's share might drop below 10% by May next year will evaporate.
A story as yet without any visible evidence from 1983? Why should this benefit UKIP - for all any of us know there may be historic or present day UKIPippers involved.
UKIP's main appeal is contempt with the established parties as a whole. Anything that accentuates that sentiment benefits the purples IMO.
When the other three parties are digging around for a UKIP councillor that said "poof" or once went to a NF meeting or once forgot to pay their tax bill, as they did at the Euros, UKIP may well be able to point to Westminster parties who once had, or still do have, a senior politician who abused kids, and other that covered it up

Revenge is a dish best served cold

Tsk - what would Enoch say!

isam · July 2014

TheScreamingEagles said:

isam said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

isam said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

isam said:

Neil said:

isam said:

NickPalmer said:
Didn't think today's canvass showed any particular movement - I'm a bit sceptical of the various recent movements in both directions, and think Labour is stable at 3-4 points ahead, though the Tories have got a bit back from UKIP.

I had a classic flaky "promise" today: "I really don't like Labour. But after something Maggie did in the 1970s I swore I'd never vote Tory again, though I can't now remember what it was. So I voted LibDem for 30 years but in government they're rubbish. UKIP and Greens are nuts. I'm desperate, so I suppose I'll have to vote for you. Hang on! Will there be a Monster Raving Loony candidate?"

Should we knock him up on polling day? Hmm.

A Palmer canvassing anecdote featuring a good natured floating voter that has opted for Labour with UKIP on the slide?

Get right out of town?!!
Particularly bad news for UKIP seeing as it is one of their target seats.
No it isn't (one of their target seats)
Oh yes it is.

http://www.nottinghampost.com/Nigel-Farage-8217-s-UKIP-target-Broxtowe-seat/story-21147345-detail/story.html

Hmmm I wouldn't have thought it will be one of the top 20 target seats for UKIP. The Nottingham Post article doesn't say that it is either
See the Indy link below.
Oh ok maybe it is!

Well I wouldn't say that a Nick Palmer anecdote means its bad news for UKIP anyway. I reckon he only ever speaks to the same 2 or 3 people! They always say the same thing

Good news for the people of Broxtow then.. Soubry or Palmer? Id vote Lib Dem
In 2009 and 2010, many people mocked Nick Palmer's canvass returns, especially the Tories for Palmer segment Nick mentioned, but as the swing proved, Nick Palmer's returns were accurate.

Oh right well bully for him

GIN1138 · July 2014

Safe to say YouGov's not showing anything particularly dramatic (like a Con lead) as it's got this late without anything being reported?

Lab 5% lead my guess.

isam · July 2014

Neil said:

AndyJS said:

Neil said:
I think the fact that we are less than a year from the GE and UKIP doesnt appear to have a final list of target seats says a lot. They are definitely more organised than last time (I doubt anyone will be flying high above ridiculously chosen target seats next year) but sometimes they give a sense of wanting to sabotage their own chances next year.
Maybe it's a clever tactic to prevent anti-UKIP tactical voting.
Maybe they've chosen their target seats, got their candidates in place and are working them the way they need to be worked to have a chance of success and they are keeping it quiet for that very reason. I've not seen any commentary from any constituency that suggests that might be the case though (they could be just doing it very,very well).

Thurrock has had the candidate in place for ages, plenty of others have only just had the Hustings. Hornchurch & Upminster (Lawrence Webb) & Romford (Gerard Batten) were only decided last month... both are MEPs so I guess they will be giving it a good go

Ishmael_X · July 2014

isam said:

AndyJS said:

Flightpath said:

AndyJS said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
Papers going big on the story we need to be careful about...but already been dubbed "Parliament Child Sex Scandal" by the newspapers.

I wouldn't like to have any money on the GE if more information starts to come to light, where it starts, goes and ends up, who knows. Papers already joining various dots from historic known individuals, PIE, etc etc etc.

Indy - Exclusive: Leon Brittan questioned by police over rape allegation"

Telegraph - Parliament child sex scandal: 114 lost files"
If this story has legs I think any hope on the part of the established parties that UKIP's share might drop below 10% by May next year
If this story has legs I think any hope on the part of the established parties that UKIP's share might drop below 10% by May next year will evaporate.

AndyJS said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
Papers going big on the story we need to be careful about...but already been dubbed "Parliament Child Sex Scandal" by the newspapers.

I wouldn't like to have any money on the GE if more information starts to come to light, where it starts, goes and ends up, who knows. Papers already joining various dots from historic known individuals, PIE, etc etc etc.

Indy - Exclusive: Leon Brittan questioned by police over rape allegation"

Telegraph - Parliament child sex scandal: 114 lost files"
If this story has legs I think any hope on the part of the established parties that UKIP's share might drop below 10% by May next year will evaporate.
A story as yet without any visible evidence from 1983? Why should this benefit UKIP - for all any of us know there may be historic or present day UKIPippers involved.
UKIP's main appeal is contempt with the established parties as a whole. Anything that accentuates that sentiment benefits the purples IMO.

When the other three parties are digging around for a UKIP councillor that said "poof" or once went to a NF meeting or once forgot to pay their tax bill, as they did at the Euros, UKIP may well be able to point to Westminster parties who once had, or still do have, a senior politician who abused kids, and other that covered it up

Revenge is a dish best served cold
Nope. Such an allegation couldn't be made unless established by a court of law. The chances of anything getting to that stage by next May are nil. And the chances of someone now in Ukip having been a paedophile in the 80s are not obviously lower than anyone else's.

Pulpstar · July 2014

If the Dutch lose before penalties, it'll be Martens Indy fault I think.

GIN1138 · July 2014

TheScreamingEagles said:

isam said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

isam said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

isam said:

Neil said:

isam said:

NickPalmer said:
Didn't think today's canvass showed any particular movement - I'm a bit sceptical of the various recent movements in both directions, and think Labour is stable at 3-4 points ahead, though the Tories have got a bit back from UKIP.

I had a classic flaky "promise" today: "I really don't like Labour. But after something Maggie did in the 1970s I swore I'd never vote Tory again, though I can't now remember what it was. So I voted LibDem for 30 years but in government they're rubbish. UKIP and Greens are nuts. I'm desperate, so I suppose I'll have to vote for you. Hang on! Will there be a Monster Raving Loony candidate?"

Should we knock him up on polling day? Hmm.

A Palmer canvassing anecdote featuring a good natured floating voter that has opted for Labour with UKIP on the slide?

Get right out of town?!!
Particularly bad news for UKIP seeing as it is one of their target seats.
No it isn't (one of their target seats)
Oh yes it is.

http://www.nottinghampost.com/Nigel-Farage-8217-s-UKIP-target-Broxtowe-seat/story-21147345-detail/story.html

Hmmm I wouldn't have thought it will be one of the top 20 target seats for UKIP. The Nottingham Post article doesn't say that it is either
See the Indy link below.
Oh ok maybe it is!

Well I wouldn't say that a Nick Palmer anecdote means its bad news for UKIP anyway. I reckon he only ever speaks to the same 2 or 3 people! They always say the same thing

Good news for the people of Broxtow then.. Soubry or Palmer? Id vote Lib Dem
In 2009 and 2010, many people mocked Nick Palmer's canvass returns, especially the Tories for Palmer segment Nick mentioned, but as the swing proved, Nick Palmer's returns were accurate.

If I was in Broxtowe I think I could quite easily be a #Tory4Palmer!!!!!!!!

isam · July 2014

Neil said:

isam said:

AndyJS said:

Flightpath said:

AndyJS said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
Papers going big on the story we need to be careful about...but already been dubbed "Parliament Child Sex Scandal" by the newspapers.

I wouldn't like to have any money on the GE if more information starts to come to light, where it starts, goes and ends up, who knows. Papers already joining various dots from historic known individuals, PIE, etc etc etc.

Indy - Exclusive: Leon Brittan questioned by police over rape allegation"

Telegraph - Parliament child sex scandal: 114 lost files"
If this story has legs I think any hope on the part of the established parties that UKIP's share might drop below 10% by May next year will evaporate.

AndyJS said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
Papers going big on the story we need to be careful about...but already been dubbed "Parliament Child Sex Scandal" by the newspapers.

If this story has legs I think any hope on the part of the established parties that UKIP's share might drop below 10% by May next year will evaporate.

AndyJS said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
Papers going big on the story we need to be careful about...but already been dubbed "Parliament Child Sex Scandal" by the newspapers.

If this story has legs I think any hope on the part of the established parties that UKIP's share might drop below 10% by May next year will evaporate.
A story as yet without any visible evidence from 1983? Why should this benefit UKIP - for all any of us know there may be historic or present day UKIPippers involved.
UKIP's main appeal is contempt with the established parties as a whole. Anything that accentuates that sentiment benefits the purples IMO.
When the other three parties are digging around for a UKIP councillor that said "poof" or once went to a NF meeting or once forgot to pay their tax bill, as they did at the Euros, UKIP may well be able to point to Westminster parties who once had, or still do have, a senior politician who abused kids, and other that covered it up

Revenge is a dish best served cold
Tsk - what would Enoch say!

I saw a picture of Enoch with Jimmy Savile earlier.. my heart sunk.

But thankfully it was part of a bizarre Radio show on the BBC where two people that had absolutely nothing in common had to sit in silence before a live audience.

http://nesbitchronicles.blogspot.co.uk/2009/09/uncomfortable-silence-with.html

Plenty of JS with Edward Heath though

isam · July 2014

Ishmael_X said:

isam said:

AndyJS said:

Flightpath said:

AndyJS said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
Papers going big on the story we need to be careful about...but already been dubbed "Parliament Child Sex Scandal" by the newspapers.

I wouldn't like to have any money on the GE if more information starts to come to light, where it starts, goes and ends up, who knows. Papers already joining various dots from historic known individuals, PIE, etc etc etc.

Indy - Exclusive: Leon Brittan questioned by police over rape allegation"

Telegraph - Parliament child sex scandal: 114 lost files"
If this story has legs I think any hope on the part of the established parties that UKIP's share might drop below 10% by May next year

AndyJS said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
Papers going big on the story we need to be careful about...but already been dubbed "Parliament Child Sex Scandal" by the newspapers.

Indy - Exclusive: Leon Brittan questioned by police over rape allegation"

Telegraph - Parliament child sex scandal: 114 lost files"
If this story has legs I think any hope on the part of the established parties that UKIP's share might drop below 10% by May next year will evaporate.
A story as yet without any visible evidence from 1983? Why should this benefit UKIP - for all any of us know there may be historic or present day UKIPippers involved.
UKIP's main appeal is contempt with the established parties as a whole. Anything that accentuates that sentiment benefits the purples IMO.
When the other three parties are digging around for a UKIP councillor that said "poof" or once went to a NF meeting or once forgot to pay their tax bill, as they did at the Euros, UKIP may well be able to point to Westminster parties who once had, or still do have, a senior politician who abused kids, and other that covered it up

Revenge is a dish best served cold

Nope. Such an allegation couldn't be made unless established by a court of law. The chances of anything getting to that stage by next May are nil. And the chances of someone now in Ukip having been a paedophile in the 80s are not obviously lower than anyone else's.

Well I can only think of one UKIP candidate who was in Westminster in the 80s, so surely that alone means they have less chance of being involved????

Charles · July 2014

Ishmael_X said:

Charles said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
Private club channels cash for 2015 Tory election war chest

United and Cecil Club ups donations to Tory party constituencies, fuelling debate about lack of transparency.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/05/tory-donors-united-and-cecil-club-2015-war-chest?CMP=twt_gu
It's not obscure. It's basically the younger members of the Treasurer's Club.
.
Non sequitur of the year, surely.

Self contradictory, I'll give you. But not really a non sequitur ;-)

fitalass · July 2014

Twitter
Glen Oglaza ‏@glenoglaza1 2m
Dear Arsene, any chance you could pop down the road and sign Navas and the entire #CRC defence please? Thanks #AFC #Arsenal

TheScreamingEagles · July 2014

This is an absolute bonkers extra time.

HYUFD · July 2014

Costa Rica on verge of one of the greatest upsets in World Cup history?

Sunil_Prasannan · July 2014

Penalties - Holland v. Costa Rica!

isam · July 2014

HYUFD said:
Costa Rica on verge of one of the greatest upsets in World Cup history?

My Dream team was flying, I took out Sneijder and Higuain and put in Robben and Teofilo.. groans

Gotta want the Ricans here.. amazing!

isam · July 2014

To qualify

Netherlands 1.84
Costa Rica 2.18

Big price Netherlands?

fitalass · July 2014

And it goes to a penalty shoot out to decide Holland vs Costa Rica match. The Dutch manager substituted their goal keeper just before end of extra time when it looked likely to go to penalties, has this ever happened before in a World Cup match?

Pulpstar · July 2014

That... is a huge call by Van Gaal.

isam · July 2014

fitalass said:
And it goes to a penalty shoot out to decide Holland vs Costa Rica match. Has there ever been another World Cup game where a manager substituted the goal keeper just before end of extra time when it looked likely to go to penalties?

I don't thinks so

I am sure a famous footballing expert said that Bobby Robson should have subbed Shilton in Italia 90 vs West Germany.. for who I cant remember, might have been Dave BEasant

http://www.sporting-heroes.net/football/england/dave-beasant-5901/biography-of-his-short-england-career_a11021/

fitalass · July 2014

YES! C'mon Holland, keep your nerve.

NickPalmer · July 2014

isam said:

A Palmer canvassing anecdote featuring a good natured floating voter that has opted for Labour with UKIP on the slide?

Get right out of town?!!

Anecdotes are intended purely for entertainment. I've never hated UKIP per se though we disagree on most things - my uncle is a strong supporter and I've known others who I like too, not least several posters here. The EU in particular is something one can reasonably disagree about without falling out. As for targeting the seat, I've been told by a central UKIP source who I met in another context that they intend to give it a good go - they see a gap in the market since all the other candidates are likely to be strongly pro-EU.

Canvass returns are slightly more interesting than anecdotes because comparing with previous returns (and the seat really has been canvassed to death over the years) gives quite a good panel-like picture of what's happening in this seat - people will sometimes lie, but the same people probably don't lie differently. Extrapolation to the whole country is probably a step too far!

isam · July 2014

Tim Krul is a right prick isn't he?

Ishmael_X · July 2014

isam said:

Ishmael_X said:

isam said:

AndyJS said:

Flightpath said:

AndyJS said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
Papers going big on the story we need to be careful about...but already been dubbed "Parliament Child Sex Scandal" by the newspapers.

I wouldn't like to have any money on the GE if more information starts to come to light, where it starts, goes and ends

Indy - Exclusive: Leon Brittan questioned by police over rape allegation"

Telegraph - Parliament child sex scandal: 114 lost files"
If this story has legs I think any hope on the part of the established parties that UKIP's share might drop below 10% by May next year

AndyJS said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
Papers going big on the story we need to be careful about...but already been dubbed "Parliament Child Sex Scandal" by the newspapers.

Indy - Exclusive: Leon Brittan questioned by police over rape allegation"

Telegraph - Parliament child sex scandal: 114 lost files"
.
A story as yet without any visible evidence from 1983? Why should this benefit UKIP - for all any of us know there may be historic or present day UKIPippers involved.
UKIP's main appeal is contempt with the established parties as a whole. Anything that accentuates that sentiment benefits the purples IMO.
When the other three parties are digging around for a UKIP councillor that said "poof" or once went to a NF meeting or once forgot to pay their tax bill, as they did at the Euros, UKIP may well be able to point to Westminster parties who once had, or still do have, a senior politician who abused kids, and other that covered it up

Revenge is a dish best served cold
Nope. Such an allegation couldn't be made unless established by a court of law. The chances of anything getting to that stage by next May are nil. And the chances of someone now in Ukip having been a paedophile in the 80s are not obviously lower than anyone else's.

Well I can only think of one UKIP candidate who was in Westminster in the 80s, so surely that alone means they have less chance of being involved????

The point is there is nothing Westminster specific about paedophilia, look at Rolf. It's not like fiddling parliamentary expenses. I imagine that Ukip has neither more than fewer than the average number in its ranks, except that if we are focusing on paedophiles active in the 1980s and if Ukip membership is disproportionately elderly and male, when you adjust for that it is likely have rather more, for purely demographic reasons. So not a terribly good argument for Ukip to get involved in.

Luckyguy1983 · July 2014

Ishmael_X said:

Nope. Such an allegation couldn't be made unless established by a court of law. The chances of anything getting to that stage by next May are nil. And the chances of someone now in Ukip having been a paedophile in the 80s are not obviously lower than anyone else's.

Um, no. This has nothing to do with whether people were once paedophiles, it's about an alleged cover up. It's about powerful people, within the establishment, allegedly facilitating child abuse, and protecting child abusers. It's allegedly about rottenness to the very core and to the very top -this, self evidently, has nothing whatever to do with UKIP.

Sunil_Prasannan · July 2014

Holland win 4-3 on pens - Costa Rica played well though!

isam · July 2014

Ah that's a shame for Costa Rica.. would have been a real fairy tale semi final

LvG's decision paid off, a brave call

HYUFD · July 2014

ISAM, indeed, but sadly not to be, the Dutch roll on and scrape through, probably to be run over by the Messi jugernaut

Pulpstar · July 2014

Great game.

One thing, both Van Gaal and Jorge Luis Pinto deserve plaudits.

fitalass · July 2014

Well the Dutch manager has been vindicated with that brave decision to switch goalkeepers for the penalty shoot out. Absolutely edge of the seat football towards the end of this game.

bigjohnowls · July 2014

Ex-Home Secretary Leon Brittan questioned by police over rape claims

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ex-home-secretary-leon-brittan-questioned-3818392#ixzz36dZvBOHi
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook
Oh dear

AndyJS · July 2014

Great performance from Costa Rica.

isam · July 2014

Ishmael_X said:

isam said:

Ishmael_X said:

isam said:

AndyJS said:

Flightpath said:

AndyJS said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
Papers going big on the story we need to be careful about...but already been dubbed "Parliament Child Sex Scandal" by the newspapers.

If this story has legs I think any hope on the part of the established parties that UKIP's share might drop below 10% by May next year

AndyJS said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
Papers going big on the story we need to be careful about...but already been dubbed "Parliament Child Sex Scandal" by the newspapers.

Indy - Exclusive: Leon Brittan questioned by police over rape allegation"

Telegraph - Parliament child sex scandal: 114 lost files"
.
A story as yet without any visible evidence from 1983? Why should this benefit UKIP - for all any of us know there may be historic or present day UKIPippers involved.
UKIP's main appeal is contempt with the established parties as a whole. Anything that accentuates that sentiment benefits the purples IMO.
When the other three parties are digging around for a UKIP councillor that said "poof" or once went to a NF meeting or once forgot to pay their tax bill, as they did at the Euros, UKIP may well be able to point to Westminster parties who once had, or still do have, a senior politician who abused kids, and other that covered it up

Revenge is a dish best served cold
Nope. Such an allegation couldn't be made unless established by a court of law. The chances of anything getting to that stage by next May are nil. And the chances of someone now in Ukip having been a paedophile in the 80s are not obviously lower than anyone else's.
Well I can only think of one UKIP candidate who was in Westminster in the 80s, so surely that alone means they have less chance of being involved????

The point is there is nothing Westminster specific about paedophilia, look at Rolf. It's not like fiddling parliamentary expenses. I imagine that Ukip has neither more than fewer than the average number in its ranks, except that if we are focusing on paedophiles active in the 1980s and if Ukip membership is disproportionately elderly and male, when you adjust for that it is likely have rather more, for purely demographic reasons. So not a terribly good argument for Ukip to get involved in.

If you like. We shall see

My money is on UKIP being the least affected of the parties by the 1970s & 80s Westminster MP paedophilia

AndyJS · July 2014

IMO Broxtowe is a seat where the Tories might possibly lose despite an increase in their share of the vote, which is a relatively unusual occurrence.

isam · July 2014

bigjohnowls said:
Ex-Home Secretary Leon Brittan questioned by police over rape claims

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ex-home-secretary-leon-brittan-questioned-3818392#ixzz36dZvBOHi
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook
Oh dear

Deleted post, bad form, not a joking matter

bigjohnowls · July 2014

Well the Mirror Sunday Times has it on their front page too

bigjohnowls · July 2014

isam said:

bigjohnowls said:
Ex-Home Secretary Leon Brittan questioned by police over rape claims

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ex-home-secretary-leon-brittan-questioned-3818392#ixzz36dZvBOHi
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook
Oh dear
Deleted post, bad form, not a joking matter

See Sunday Times as well tomorrow

AndyJS · July 2014

Sunday Times also leading with the same story as the Indy and Mirror.

bigjohnowls · July 2014

And the Independent on Sunday

bigjohnowls · July 2014

isam said:

bigjohnowls said:
Ex-Home Secretary Leon Brittan questioned by police over rape claims

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ex-home-secretary-leon-brittan-questioned-3818392#ixzz36dZvBOHi
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook
Oh dear
Deleted post, bad form, not a joking matter

Who is joking IOS, Sunday Times and Sunday Mirror.

isam · July 2014

bigjohnowls said:

isam said:

bigjohnowls said:
Ex-Home Secretary Leon Brittan questioned by police over rape claims

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ex-home-secretary-leon-brittan-questioned-3818392#ixzz36dZvBOHi
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook
Oh dear
Deleted post, bad form, not a joking matter
See Sunday Times as well tomorrow

Rightly or wrongly, the anti politician meme plays well for UKIP.. even if people on here say they are no different, and even if they were right to say so, that isn't how the public see it

This padeo politician thing could ensure the old big three poll less than 70% next year

AveryLP · July 2014

@iSam

I saw a picture of Enoch with Jimmy Savile earlier.. my heart sunk.

But thankfully it was part of a bizarre Radio show on the BBC where two people that had absolutely nothing in common had to sit in silence before a live audience.

http://nesbitchronicles.blogspot.co.uk/2009/09/uncomfortable-silence-with.html

Plenty of JS with Edward Heath though

Sam

This long-running Radio Four series brought together two prominent personalities of the time with absolutely nothing in common to sit in silence in front of an invited audience.

This photograph from the 1971 Christmas edition of the programme features Jimmy Saville, a prominent Radio One disc jockey and Enoch Powell, the maverick anti-immigration right-wing politician.

Was the silence punctuated with the sound of someone playing on his didgeridoo?

FrancisUrquhart · July 2014

Labour Lord's 'sex attacks on 12 children': 'Horrific' allegations include rape and serious sexual assaults MoS reveals

A Labour peer is being investigated by police after 12 men made allegations of historical child abuse against him, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.

Sources close to the investigation last night said that the ‘horrific’ allegations include rape and serious sexual assault.

It is understood the alleged abuse took place over several decades.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2681827/Labour-Lords-sex-attacks-12-children-Horrific-allegations-include-rape-sexual-assaults.html

Ninoinoz · July 2014

Ishmael_X said:
The point is there is nothing Westminster specific about paedophilia, look at Rolf. It's not like fiddling parliamentary expenses. I imagine that Ukip has neither more than fewer than the average number in its ranks, except that if we are focusing on paedophiles active in the 1980s and if Ukip membership is disproportionately elderly and male, when you adjust for that it is likely have rather more, for purely demographic reasons. So not a terribly good argument for Ukip to get involved in.

Hmm. Using a BBC pervert to exonerate Westminster MPs seems an interesting strategy to me. Bonkers, but interesting.

The truth is that as UKIP controls no major councils whatsoever, has never been in Government or even had MPs elected, it has a completely free hand in attacking the establishment parties.

They are all in it together, as the Leveson-threatened press will no doubt prove.

isam · July 2014

AveryLP said:
@iSam

I saw a picture of Enoch with Jimmy Savile earlier.. my heart sunk.

But thankfully it was part of a bizarre Radio show on the BBC where two people that had absolutely nothing in common had to sit in silence before a live audience.

http://nesbitchronicles.blogspot.co.uk/2009/09/uncomfortable-silence-with.html

Plenty of JS with Edward Heath though

Sam

This long-running Radio Four series brought together two prominent personalities of the time with absolutely nothing in common to sit in silence in front of an invited audience.

This photograph from the 1971 Christmas edition of the programme features Jimmy Saville, a prominent Radio One disc jockey and Enoch Powell, the maverick anti-immigration right-wing politician.

Was the silence punctuated with the sound of someone playing on his didgeridoo?

Well if Enoch was involved at all in any of this filth, it would be bad for your Tories, but I very much doubt he was

His nemeisis? Well that's another story

Pulpstar · July 2014

AveryLP said:

Was the silence punctuated with the sound of someone playing on his didgeridoo?

Post Of The Year

Ishmael_X · July 2014

Luckyguy1983 said:

Ishmael_X said:

Nope. Such an allegation couldn't be made unless established by a court of law. The chances of anything getting to that stage by next May are nil. And the chances of someone now in Ukip having been a paedophile in the 80s are not obviously lower than anyone else's.
Um, no. This has nothing to do with whether people were once paedophiles, it's about an alleged cover up. It's about powerful people, within the establishment, allegedly facilitating child abuse, and protecting child abusers. It's allegedly about rottenness to the very core and to the very top -this, self evidently, has nothing whatever to do with UKIP.

Nothing very self evident about any of that. UKIP complain with a good deal of justification that the press has it in for them. At the moment the press is looking for evidence of bigotry and racism; if there is the remotest hint of UKIP getting holier than thou over anything paedophilia related they will just as happily start looking for evidence of that.

Ninoinoz · July 2014

isam said:

bigjohnowls said:
Ex-Home Secretary Leon Brittan questioned by police over rape claims

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ex-home-secretary-leon-brittan-questioned-3818392#ixzz36dZvBOHi
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook
Oh dear
Deleted post, bad form, not a joking matter

Well done for doing so, @isam.

However, the same courtesy wasn't extended to Roman Catholics in this country, was it?

I have a big bucket of sh1t right here and I' m going to tip it over MPs and the BBC.

BTW, you are right. Revenge is a dish best served cold.

AveryLP · July 2014

isam said:

AveryLP said:
@iSam

I saw a picture of Enoch with Jimmy Savile earlier.. my heart sunk.

But thankfully it was part of a bizarre Radio show on the BBC where two people that had absolutely nothing in common had to sit in silence before a live audience.

http://nesbitchronicles.blogspot.co.uk/2009/09/uncomfortable-silence-with.html

Plenty of JS with Edward Heath though

Sam

This long-running Radio Four series brought together two prominent personalities of the time with absolutely nothing in common to sit in silence in front of an invited audience.

This photograph from the 1971 Christmas edition of the programme features Jimmy Saville, a prominent Radio One disc jockey and Enoch Powell, the maverick anti-immigration right-wing politician.

Was the silence punctuated with the sound of someone playing on his didgeridoo?
Well if Enoch was involved at all in any of this filth, it would be bad for your Tories, but I very much doubt he was

His nemeisis? Well that's another story

Sam

None of what is going on in the press is new and almost all the allegations being hinted at have been covered exhaustively in, albeit subsequently discredited, publications.

This is a game of outing individuals holding public office or other sensitive posts, who were subject of public speculation, and in many instances proper police investigation, in the period between the 1970s to 1990s.

Almost all the allegations are still available to read online but you will have to find the sources yourself. You also need an immense amount of tolerance and patience to wade through thousands (literally) of blog pages of repetitive comments containing all forms of allegation from known and verifiable fact through to the most absurd and far-fetched speculation.

The allegations are a matter for the police to investigate and for politicians to maintain a dignified silence about, at least until the police have finished their investigations.

Ninoinoz · July 2014

Ishmael_X said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Ishmael_X said:

Nope. Such an allegation couldn't be made unless established by a court of law. The chances of anything getting to that stage by next May are nil. And the chances of someone now in Ukip having been a paedophile in the 80s are not obviously lower than anyone else's.
Um, no. This has nothing to do with whether people were once paedophiles, it's about an alleged cover up. It's about powerful people, within the establishment, allegedly facilitating child abuse, and protecting child abusers. It's allegedly about rottenness to the very core and to the very top -this, self evidently, has nothing whatever to do with UKIP.
Nothing very self evident about any of that. UKIP complain with a good deal of justification that the press has it in for them. At the moment the press is looking for evidence of bigotry and racism; if there is the remotest hint of UKIP getting holier than thou over anything paedophilia related they will just as happily start looking for evidence of that.

What UKIP ministers covered up?
What UKIP MPs didn't use parliamentary privilege to expose the paedophiles?
What UKIP-supporting papers suppressed evidence of child rape?

I think you'll find only in liberal circles does child rape rank as a lower crime than racism.

Here's an article illustrating that.

telegraph.co.uk/comment/10948796/Paedophilia-is-natural-and-normal-for-males.html

Ishmael_X · July 2014

Ninoinoz said:

Ishmael_X said:
The point is there is nothing Westminster specific about paedophilia, look at Rolf. It's not like fiddling parliamentary expenses. I imagine that Ukip has neither more than fewer than the average number in its ranks, except that if we are focusing on paedophiles active in the 1980s and if Ukip membership is disproportionately elderly and male, when you adjust for that it is likely have rather more, for purely demographic reasons. So not a terribly good argument for Ukip to get involved in.
Hmm. Using a BBC pervert to exonerate Westminster MPs seems an interesting strategy to me. Bonkers, but interesting.

The truth is that as UKIP controls no major councils whatsoever, has never been in Government or even had MPs elected, it has a completely free hand in attacking the establishment parties.

They are all in it together, as the Leveson-threatened press will no doubt prove.

You don't seem to know what "exonerate" means.

isam · July 2014

AveryLP said:

isam said:

AveryLP said:
@iSam

I saw a picture of Enoch with Jimmy Savile earlier.. my heart sunk.

But thankfully it was part of a bizarre Radio show on the BBC where two people that had absolutely nothing in common had to sit in silence before a live audience.

http://nesbitchronicles.blogspot.co.uk/2009/09/uncomfortable-silence-with.html

Plenty of JS with Edward Heath though

Sam

This long-running Radio Four series brought together two prominent personalities of the time with absolutely nothing in common to sit in silence in front of an invited audience.

This photograph from the 1971 Christmas edition of the programme features Jimmy Saville, a prominent Radio One disc jockey and Enoch Powell, the maverick anti-immigration right-wing politician.

Was the silence punctuated with the sound of someone playing on his didgeridoo?
Well if Enoch was involved at all in any of this filth, it would be bad for your Tories, but I very much doubt he was

His nemeisis? Well that's another story
Sam

None of what is going on in the press is new and almost all the allegations being hinted at have been covered exhaustively in, albeit subsequently discredited, publications.

This is a game of outing individuals holding public office or other sensitive posts, who were subject of public speculation, and in many instances proper police investigation, in the period between the 1970s to 1990s.

Almost all the allegations are still available to read online but you will have to find the sources yourself. You also need an immense amount of tolerance and patience to wade through thousands (literally) of blog pages of repetitive comments containing all forms of allegation from known and verifiable fact through to the most absurd and far-fetched speculation.

The allegations are a matter for the police to investigate and for politicians to maintain a dignified silence about, at least until the police have finished their investigations.

We shall see I suppose

NickPalmer · July 2014

I did get one voter today saying that she wasn't going to vote since ALL politicians seemed be either corrupt or paedophiles or both - she politely said that she had no specific suspicion of me but it seemed to her to be universal. She abstained last time too, though.

In general I doubt if there will be or should be partisan consequences if any particular elderly former MPs are prosecuted. I'm as partisan as anyone but I wouldn't suggest that if a former Tory MP X was involved, that told us anything about Tories in general.

AveryLP · July 2014

Ninoinoz said:

isam said:

bigjohnowls said:
Ex-Home Secretary Leon Brittan questioned by police over rape claims

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ex-home-secretary-leon-brittan-questioned-3818392#ixzz36dZvBOHi
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook
Oh dear
Deleted post, bad form, not a joking matter
I have a big bucket of sh1t right here and I' m going to tip it over MPs and the BBC.

Nino

Do you get excited by the thought of doing this?

isam · July 2014

NickPalmer said:
I did get one voter today saying that she wasn't going to vote since ALL politicians seemed be either corrupt or paedophiles or both - she politely said that she had no specific suspicion of me but it seemed to her to be universal. She abstained last time too, though.

In general I doubt if there will be or should be partisan consequences if any particular elderly former MPs are prosecuted. I'm as partisan as anyone but I wouldn't suggest that if a former Tory MP X was involved, that told us anything about Tories in general.

There a re paedophilia stories about Tories, Labour and Lib Dems from the 80s, and I wouldn't think for a minute that it meant any of the parties now were that way inclined, nor should it mean that any of its MPs are

But...

If you dig around for one UKIP councillors facebook or twitter page, and then extrapolate their views to smear the whole party time and time and time again... don't complain when these unfair extrapolations come back to bite

I kept hearing before the Euros that politics wasn't fair, and that this was the way it is.. welcome to the big league etc... well it works both ways

Ninoinoz · July 2014

AveryLP said:

Sam

None of what is going on in the press is new and almost all the allegations being hinted at have been covered exhaustively in, albeit subsequently discredited, publications.

This is a game of outing individuals holding public office or other sensitive posts, who were subject of public speculation, and in many instances proper police investigation, in the period between the 1970s to 1990s.

Almost all the allegations are still available to read online but you will have to find the sources yourself. You also need an immense amount of tolerance and patience to wade through thousands (literally) of blog pages of repetitive comments containing all forms of allegation from known and verifiable fact through to the most absurd and far-fetched speculation.

The allegations are a matter for the police to investigate and for politicians to maintain a dignified silence about, at least until the police have finished their investigations.

Well, MPs have certainly done the 'maintaining a dignified silence' bit.

Of course, if the police never investigate in the first place they would never comment at all, would they? Very convenient for the establishment parties.

Frankly, your trust in the police is risible, after Jimmy Savile, Cyril Smith and Asian Muslim child rape gangs.

Can you provide me with even a single MP prosecuted for child sex between 1970 and 2010?

Or else tell me what the secret is to recruiting such a saintly group of individuals?

Ninoinoz · July 2014

Ishmael_X said:

Ninoinoz said:

Ishmael_X said:
The point is there is nothing Westminster specific about paedophilia, look at Rolf. It's not like fiddling parliamentary expenses. I imagine that Ukip has neither more than fewer than the average number in its ranks, except that if we are focusing on paedophiles active in the 1980s and if Ukip membership is disproportionately elderly and male, when you adjust for that it is likely have rather more, for purely demographic reasons. So not a terribly good argument for Ukip to get involved in.
Hmm. Using a BBC pervert to exonerate Westminster MPs seems an interesting strategy to me. Bonkers, but interesting.

The truth is that as UKIP controls no major councils whatsoever, has never been in Government or even had MPs elected, it has a completely free hand in attacking the establishment parties.

They are all in it together, as the Leveson-threatened press will no doubt prove.
You don't seem to know what "exonerate" means.

MPs free to rape children with impunity .... and you question my vocabulary?

An 'interesting' set of priorities to say the least.

AveryLP · July 2014

Ninoinoz said:

AveryLP said:

Sam

None of what is going on in the press is new and almost all the allegations being hinted at have been covered exhaustively in, albeit subsequently discredited, publications.

This is a game of outing individuals holding public office or other sensitive posts, who were subject of public speculation, and in many instances proper police investigation, in the period between the 1970s to 1990s.

Almost all the allegations are still available to read online but you will have to find the sources yourself. You also need an immense amount of tolerance and patience to wade through thousands (literally) of blog pages of repetitive comments containing all forms of allegation from known and verifiable fact through to the most absurd and far-fetched speculation.

The allegations are a matter for the police to investigate and for politicians to maintain a dignified silence about, at least until the police have finished their investigations.
Can you provide me with even a single MP prosecuted for child sex between 1970 and 2010?

Your question can be reversed:

Can you provide me with the name of a single MP who is alleged to have committed child sex between 1970 and 2010?;

or varied:

Can you provide me with the name of a single MP who has committed murder between 1970 and 2010?

Now do you see why such matters are best left to the police to investigate, which through Operation Fernbridge (and other investigations) the Met are currently doing.

Socrates · July 2014

Ninoinoz said:

Ishmael_X said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Ishmael_X said:

Nope. Such an allegation couldn't be made unless established by a court of law. The chances of anything getting to that stage by next May are nil. And the chances of someone now in Ukip having been a paedophile in the 80s are not obviously lower than anyone else's.
Um, no. This has nothing to do with whether people were once paedophiles, it's about an alleged cover up. It's about powerful people, within the establishment, allegedly facilitating child abuse, and protecting child abusers. It's allegedly about rottenness to the very core and to the very top -this, self evidently, has nothing whatever to do with UKIP.
Nothing very self evident about any of that. UKIP complain with a good deal of justification that the press has it in for them. At the moment the press is looking for evidence of bigotry and racism; if there is the remotest hint of UKIP getting holier than thou over anything paedophilia related they will just as happily start looking for evidence of that.
What UKIP ministers covered up?
What UKIP MPs didn't use parliamentary privilege to expose the paedophiles?
What UKIP-supporting papers suppressed evidence of child rape?

I think you'll find only in liberal circles does child rape rank as a lower crime than racism.

Here's an article illustrating that.

telegraph.co.uk/comment/10948796/Paedophilia-is-natural-and-normal-for-males.html

Sickening.

Ninoinoz · July 2014

AveryLP said:

Ninoinoz said:

isam said:

bigjohnowls said:
Ex-Home Secretary Leon Brittan questioned by police over rape claims

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ex-home-secretary-leon-brittan-questioned-3818392#ixzz36dZvBOHi
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook
Oh dear
Deleted post, bad form, not a joking matter
I have a big bucket of sh1t right here and I' m going to tip it over MPs and the BBC.

Nino

Do you get excited by the thought of doing this?

Over the child rape enthusiasts at the BBC? Most certainly.

MPs? Not so much. But their treatment of UKIP during the European campaign has done a lot to lessen my sympathy.

Socrates · July 2014

isam said:

NickPalmer said:
I did get one voter today saying that she wasn't going to vote since ALL politicians seemed be either corrupt or paedophiles or both - she politely said that she had no specific suspicion of me but it seemed to her to be universal. She abstained last time too, though.

In general I doubt if there will be or should be partisan consequences if any particular elderly former MPs are prosecuted. I'm as partisan as anyone but I wouldn't suggest that if a former Tory MP X was involved, that told us anything about Tories in general.
There a re paedophilia stories about Tories, Labour and Lib Dems from the 80s, and I wouldn't think for a minute that it meant any of the parties now were that way inclined, nor should it mean that any of its MPs are

But...

If you dig around for one UKIP councillors facebook or twitter page, and then extrapolate their views to smear the whole party time and time and time again... don't complain when these unfair extrapolations come back to bite

I kept hearing before the Euros that politics wasn't fair, and that this was the way it is.. welcome to the big league etc... well it works both ways

Perhaps the reasonable among us can distance ourselves from the explicit smears while still doing a backhanded smear by saying something like "the Europhile parties aren't all paedophiles, they just have a disproportionate share of them."?

DavidL · July 2014

Unfortunately I have to be in Edinburgh for court on Tuesday morning and the last train that can get me there on time leaves Ilkley at 7.10 pm so I am not going to make it. I will do my best to make Manchester.

Socrates · July 2014

@Ninoioz

It's interesting that at speaker's corner you're banned from saying racist things but could openly advocate paedophilia. Our left-wing thought police really have screwed priorities.

Ishmael_X · July 2014

Ninoinoz said:

Ishmael_X said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Ishmael_X said:

Nope. Such an allegation couldn't be made unless established by a court of law. The chances of anything getting to that stage by next May are nil. And the chances of someone now in Ukip having been a paedophile in the 80s are not obviously lower than anyone else's.
Um, no. This has nothing to do with whether people were once paedophiles, it's about an alleged cover up. It's about powerful people, within the establishment, allegedly facilitating child abuse, and protecting child abusers. It's allegedly about rottenness to the very core and to the very top -this, self evidently, has nothing whatever to do with UKIP.
Nothing very self evident about any of that. UKIP complain with a good deal of justification that the press has it in for them. At the moment the press is looking for evidence of bigotry and racism; if there is the remotest hint of UKIP getting holier than thou over anything paedophilia related they will just as happily start looking for evidence of that.
What UKIP ministers covered up?
What UKIP MPs didn't use parliamentary privilege to expose the paedophiles?
What UKIP-supporting papers suppressed evidence of child rape?

I think you'll find only in liberal circles does child rape rank as a lower crime than racism.

Here's an article illustrating that.

telegraph.co.uk/comment/10948796/Paedophilia-is-natural-and-normal-for-males.html

I don't think I can re-explain the point in terms too simple for you to misunderstand. You crack on and campaign for UKIP along the lines you suggest.

isam · July 2014

Socrates said:

isam said:

NickPalmer said:
I did get one voter today saying that she wasn't going to vote since ALL politicians seemed be either corrupt or paedophiles or both - she politely said that she had no specific suspicion of me but it seemed to her to be universal. She abstained last time too, though.

In general I doubt if there will be or should be partisan consequences if any particular elderly former MPs are prosecuted. I'm as partisan as anyone but I wouldn't suggest that if a former Tory MP X was involved, that told us anything about Tories in general.
There are paedophilia stories about Tories, Labour and Lib Dems from the 80s, and I wouldn't think for a minute that it meant any of the parties now were that way inclined, nor should it mean that any of its MPs are

But...

If you dig around for one UKIP councillors facebook or twitter page, and then extrapolate their views to smear the whole party time and time and time again... don't complain when these unfair extrapolations come back to bite

I kept hearing before the Euros that politics wasn't fair, and that this was the way it is.. welcome to the big league etc... well it works both ways
Perhaps the reasonable among us can distance ourselves from the explicit smears while still doing a backhanded smear by saying something like "the Europhile parties aren't all paedophiles, they just have a disproportionate share of them."?

"Loonys, fruits, and closet rapists"

Ishmael_X · July 2014

isam said:

NickPalmer said:
I did get one voter today saying that she wasn't going to vote since ALL politicians seemed be either corrupt or paedophiles or both - she politely said that she had no specific suspicion of me but it seemed to her to be universal. She abstained last time too, though.

In general I doubt if there will be or should be partisan consequences if any particular elderly former MPs are prosecuted. I'm as partisan as anyone but I wouldn't suggest that if a former Tory MP X was involved, that told us anything about Tories in general.
There a re paedophilia stories about Tories, Labour and Lib Dems from the 80s, and I wouldn't think for a minute that it meant any of the parties now were that way inclined, nor should it mean that any of its MPs are

But...

If you dig around for one UKIP councillors facebook or twitter page, and then extrapolate their views to smear the whole party time and time and time again... don't complain when these unfair extrapolations come back to bite

I kept hearing before the Euros that politics wasn't fair, and that this was the way it is.. welcome to the big league etc... well it works both ways

I see your point, but it doesn't work both ways because you can't accuse people of paedophilia in the same way as you can accuse them of saying things which they have demonstrably, actually said. If UKIP tries to make capital out of this the press will find UKIP sex offenders as sure as eggs is eggs, and the argument that this isn't about sex offenders, it's about Westminster sex offenders and cover ups, will cut no ice with anyone. It may not be fair, but that's the way it is.

isam · July 2014

Ishmael_X said:

isam said:

NickPalmer said:
I did get one voter today saying that she wasn't going to vote since ALL politicians seemed be either corrupt or paedophiles or both - she politely said that she had no specific suspicion of me but it seemed to her to be universal. She abstained last time too, though.

In general I doubt if there will be or should be partisan consequences if any particular elderly former MPs are prosecuted. I'm as partisan as anyone but I wouldn't suggest that if a former Tory MP X was involved, that told us anything about Tories in general.
There a re paedophilia stories about Tories, Labour and Lib Dems from the 80s, and I wouldn't think for a minute that it meant any of the parties now were that way inclined, nor should it mean that any of its MPs are

But...

If you dig around for one UKIP councillors facebook or twitter page, and then extrapolate their views to smear the whole party time and time and time again... don't complain when these unfair extrapolations come back to bite

I kept hearing before the Euros that politics wasn't fair, and that this was the way it is.. welcome to the big league etc... well it works both ways
I see your point, but it doesn't work both ways because you can't accuse people of paedophilia in the same way as you can accuse them of saying things which they have demonstrably, actually said. If UKIP tries to make capital out of this the press will find UKIP sex offenders as sure as eggs is eggs, and the argument that this isn't about sex offenders, it's about Westminster sex offenders and cover ups, will cut no ice with anyone. It may not be fair, but that's the way it is.

There are racists and homophobes in every other party though as well, but only UKIP get smeared. In fact, several of the UKIP members that were caught saying stuff about Gay Weather or attending NF meetings had stood for the Conservatives when they said such things, and were not thrown out.

So as I say, even if there were UKIP paedos, this time its all about Westminster cover ups, of which UKIP are no part of because they've never been in Westminster or in power

dyedwoolie · July 2014

Ishmael_X said:

isam said:

NickPalmer said:
I did get one voter today saying that she wasn't going to vote since ALL politicians seemed be either corrupt or paedophiles or both - she politely said that she had no specific suspicion of me but it seemed to her to be universal. She abstained last time too, though.

In general I doubt if there will be or should be partisan consequences if any particular elderly former MPs are prosecuted. I'm as partisan as anyone but I wouldn't suggest that if a former Tory MP X was involved, that told us anything about Tories in general.
There a re paedophilia stories about Tories, Labour and Lib Dems from the 80s, and I wouldn't think for a minute that it meant any of the parties now were that way inclined, nor should it mean that any of its MPs are

But...

If you dig around for one UKIP councillors facebook or twitter page, and then extrapolate their views to smear the whole party time and time and time again... don't complain when these unfair extrapolations come back to bite

I kept hearing before the Euros that politics wasn't fair, and that this was the way it is.. welcome to the big league etc... well it works both ways
I see your point, but it doesn't work both ways because you can't accuse people of paedophilia in the same way as you can accuse them of saying things which they have demonstrably, actually said. If UKIP tries to make capital out of this the press will find UKIP sex offenders as sure as eggs is eggs, and the argument that this isn't about sex offenders, it's about Westminster sex offenders and cover ups, will cut no ice with anyone. It may not be fair, but that's the way it is.

Quite. It doesn't take an immense amount of googling to find stories from all 4 major parties (as it stands) involving allegations of paedophilia.
This is about possible establishment cover up, the establishment of 30 years ago. It falls to the government of the day to lead the investigation and clear up an alleged historic mess.
Anybody trying to obtain 21st century electoral advantage is going to fall flat on their face, or be pushed there.

Ninoinoz · July 2014

Ishmael_X said:

isam said:

NickPalmer said:
I did get one voter today saying that she wasn't going to vote since ALL politicians seemed be either corrupt or paedophiles or both - she politely said that she had no specific suspicion of me but it seemed to her to be universal. She abstained last time too, though.

In general I doubt if there will be or should be partisan consequences if any particular elderly former MPs are prosecuted. I'm as partisan as anyone but I wouldn't suggest that if a former Tory MP X was involved, that told us anything about Tories in general.
There a re paedophilia stories about Tories, Labour and Lib Dems from the 80s, and I wouldn't think for a minute that it meant any of the parties now were that way inclined, nor should it mean that any of its MPs are

But...

If you dig around for one UKIP councillors facebook or twitter page, and then extrapolate their views to smear the whole party time and time and time again... don't complain when these unfair extrapolations come back to bite

I kept hearing before the Euros that politics wasn't fair, and that this was the way it is.. welcome to the big league etc... well it works both ways
I see your point, but it doesn't work both ways because you can't accuse people of paedophilia in the same way as you can accuse them of saying things which they have demonstrably, actually said. If UKIP tries to make capital out of this the press will find UKIP sex offenders as sure as eggs is eggs, and the argument that this isn't about sex offenders, it's about Westminster sex offenders and cover ups, will cut no ice with anyone. It may not be fair, but that's the way it is.

You can most certainly accuse political parties of harbouring child rapists.

And as UKIP were only founded in the 1990's, they will avoid the sexual chaos of the 1970's and 1980's.

Also, being in charge of zero children's homes and zero schools means they have zero need of child abuse cover ups. The same cannot be said of Conservative, Labour and Liberal parties.

So, UKIP have a free hand to attacks those parties.

Mind you, I thought the same of the BBC!

isam · July 2014

dyedwoolie said:

Ishmael_X said:

isam said:

NickPalmer said:
I did get one voter today saying that she wasn't going to vote since ALL politicians seemed be either corrupt or paedophiles or both - she politely said that she had no specific suspicion of me but it seemed to her to be universal. She abstained last time too, though.

In general I doubt if there will be or should be partisan consequences if any particular elderly former MPs are prosecuted. I'm as partisan as anyone but I wouldn't suggest that if a former Tory MP X was involved, that told us anything about Tories in general.
There a re paedophilia stories about Tories, Labour and Lib Dems from the 80s, and I wouldn't think for a minute that it meant any of the parties now were that way inclined, nor should it mean that any of its MPs are

But...

If you dig around for one UKIP councillors facebook or twitter page, and then extrapolate their views to smear the whole party time and time and time again... don't complain when these unfair extrapolations come back to bite

I kept hearing before the Euros that politics wasn't fair, and that this was the way it is.. welcome to the big league etc... well it works both ways
I see your point, but it doesn't work both ways because you can't accuse people of paedophilia in the same way as you can accuse them of saying things which they have demonstrably, actually said. If UKIP tries to make capital out of this the press will find UKIP sex offenders as sure as eggs is eggs, and the argument that this isn't about sex offenders, it's about Westminster sex offenders and cover ups, will cut no ice with anyone. It may not be fair, but that's the way it is.
Quite. It doesn't take an immense amount of googling to find stories from all 4 major parties (as it stands) involving allegations of paedophilia.
This is about possible establishment cover up, the establishment of 30 years ago. It falls to the government of the day to lead the investigation and clear up an alleged historic mess.
Anybody trying to obtain 21st century electoral advantage is going to fall flat on their face, or be pushed there.

I haven't seen any links to UKIP politicians and paedophilia.. I have seen plenty from the other three... are you sure?

Its not about seeking electoral advantage, it just is that way.

UKIP wont have to sell this story. If it turns out that a major party was covering up Paedophila in the 80s, people will feel less inclined to vote for that party in 2015. It is human nature, fair or unfair
.
It cant be helped that UKIP didn't have any politicians at the time. It is lucky for them that its the case...

dyedwoolie · July 2014

isam said:

Ishmael_X said:

isam said:

NickPalmer said:
I did get one voter today saying that she wasn't going to vote since ALL politicians seemed be either corrupt or paedophiles or both - she politely said that she had no specific suspicion of me but it seemed to her to be universal. She abstained last time too, though.

In general I doubt if there will be or should be partisan consequences if any particular elderly former MPs are prosecuted. I'm as partisan as anyone but I wouldn't suggest that if a former Tory MP X was involved, that told us anything about Tories in general.
There a re paedophilia stories about Tories, Labour and Lib Dems from the 80s, and I wouldn't think for a minute that it meant any of the parties now were that way inclined, nor should it mean that any of its MPs are

But...

If you dig around for one UKIP councillors facebook or twitter page, and then extrapolate their views to smear the whole party time and time and time again... don't complain when these unfair extrapolations come back to bite

I kept hearing before the Euros that politics wasn't fair, and that this was the way it is.. welcome to the big league etc... well it works both ways
I see your point, but it doesn't work both ways because you can't accuse people of paedophilia in the same way as you can accuse them of saying things which they have demonstrably, actually said. If UKIP tries to make capital out of this the press will find UKIP sex offenders as sure as eggs is eggs, and the argument that this isn't about sex offenders, it's about Westminster sex offenders and cover ups, will cut no ice with anyone. It may not be fair, but that's the way it is.
There are racists and homophobes in every other party though as well, but only UKIP get smeared. In fact, several of the UKIP members that were caught saying stuff about Gay Weather or attending NF meetings had stood for the Conservatives when they said such things, and were not thrown out.

So as I say, even if there were UKIP paedos, this time its all about Westminster cover ups, of which UKIP are no part of because they've never been in Westminster or in power

And nor were the current cabinet or most of the government at the time of the allegations, and it is they that will lead the investigation and take the plaudits for exposing any historic wrongdoing that is discovered and prosecuted,

The key thing is, of course, to see justice for anyone who was abused, and to see that the peoples representatives are unbiased and diligent in ensuring that occurs. If others want to try and score votes over it, they do so at the risk of their own conscience.

Another chance for the Tories to detoxify, by outing historic demons and seeing them pay.

dyedwoolie · July 2014

isam said:

dyedwoolie said:

Ishmael_X said:

isam said:

NickPalmer said:
I did get one voter today saying that she wasn't going to vote since ALL politicians seemed be either corrupt or paedophiles or both - she politely said that she had no specific suspicion of me but it seemed to her to be universal. She abstained last time too, though.

In general I doubt if there will be or should be partisan consequences if any particular elderly former MPs are prosecuted. I'm as partisan as anyone but I wouldn't suggest that if a former Tory MP X was involved, that told us anything about Tories in general.
There a re paedophilia stories about Tories, Labour and Lib Dems from the 80s, and I wouldn't think for a minute that it meant any of the parties now were that way inclined, nor should it mean that any of its MPs are

But...

If you dig around for one UKIP councillors facebook or twitter page, and then extrapolate their views to smear the whole party time and time and time again... don't complain when these unfair extrapolations come back to bite

I kept hearing before the Euros that politics wasn't fair, and that this was the way it is.. welcome to the big league etc... well it works both ways
I see your point, but it doesn't work both ways because you can't accuse people of paedophilia in the same way as you can accuse them of saying things which they have demonstrably, actually said. If UKIP tries to make capital out of this the press will find UKIP sex offenders as sure as eggs is eggs, and the argument that this isn't about sex offenders, it's about Westminster sex offenders and cover ups, will cut no ice with anyone. It may not be fair, but that's the way it is.
Quite. It doesn't take an immense amount of googling to find stories from all 4 major parties (as it stands) involving allegations of paedophilia.
This is about possible establishment cover up, the establishment of 30 years ago. It falls to the government of the day to lead the investigation and clear up an alleged historic mess.
Anybody trying to obtain 21st century electoral advantage is going to fall flat on their face, or be pushed there.
I haven't seen any links to UKIP politicians and paedophilia.. I have seen plenty from the other three... are you sure?

Its not about seeking electoral advantage, it just is that way.

UKIP wont have to sell this story. If it turns out that a major party was covering up Paedophila in the 80s, people will feel less inclined to vote for that party in 2015. It is human nature, fair or unfair
.
It cant be helped that UKIP didn't have any politicians at the time. It is lucky for them that its the case...

I'm not going to post names due to the obvious legal issues, but it's easily googlable. So yes I am sure.

Ninoinoz · July 2014

dyedwoolie said:
Quite. It doesn't take an immense amount of googling to find stories from all 4 major parties (as it stands) involving allegations of paedophilia.
This is about possible establishment cover up, the establishment of 30 years ago. It falls to the government of the day to lead the investigation and clear up an alleged historic mess.
Anybody trying to obtain 21st century electoral advantage is going to fall flat on their face, or be pushed there.

*** IMPORTANT ADVICE FOR PBers***

When confronted with such bollocks as above concerning political parties or the BBC, try the following thought experiment:

Imagine the poster is His Grace the Roman Catholic Bishop of Such-and-Such Diocese and the child abusers concerned are Roman Catholic clergy.

Example:

Bishop of Somewhere in Ireland said:
Quite. It doesn't take an immense amount of googling to find stories from all major religions involving allegations of paedophilia.
This is about possible Church cover up, the Church of 30 years ago. It falls to the Bishops of the day to lead the investigation and clear up an alleged historic mess.
Anybody trying to obtain 21st century political advantage is going to fall flat on their face, or be pushed there.

AveryLP · July 2014

isam said:

dyedwoolie said:

Ishmael_X said:

isam said:

NickPalmer said:

...
...
I see your point, but it doesn't work both ways because you can't accuse people of paedophilia in the same way as you can accuse them of saying things which they have demonstrably, actually said. If UKIP tries to make capital out of this the press will find UKIP sex offenders as sure as eggs is eggs, and the argument that this isn't about sex offenders, it's about Westminster sex offenders and cover ups, will cut no ice with anyone. It may not be fair, but that's the way it is.
Quite. It doesn't take an immense amount of googling to find stories from all 4 major parties (as it stands) involving allegations of paedophilia.
This is about possible establishment cover up, the establishment of 30 years ago. It falls to the government of the day to lead the investigation and clear up an alleged historic mess.
Anybody trying to obtain 21st century electoral advantage is going to fall flat on their face, or be pushed there.
I haven't seen any links to UKIP politicians and paedophilia.. I have seen plenty from the other three... are you sure?

Its not about seeking electoral advantage, it just is that way.

UKIP wont have to sell this story. If it turns out that a major party was covering up Paedophila in the 80s, people will feel less inclined to vote for that party in 2015. It is human nature, fair or unfair
.
It cant be helped that UKIP didn't have any politicians at the time. It is lucky for them that its the case...

“Yes I am pro bestiality and necrophilia being legalised as you ask. Why should the state tell me I cant?… the animal was never human, the corpse is no longer human… if people want to do it and want it to be done to them whats wrong with it? …when your dead are you alive? no. so are you a living human being? no your a shell, your not a person anymore … hey dont have to, they arent a person anymore, theyre property, its like having sex with your pillow.”

A public statement by Olly Neville who, at the time, was Youth Chairman of UKIP. Subsequently sacked he went on to write about the sacking and his views of UKIP in the Independent:

See here: http://ind.pn/1oxplgB

dyedwoolie · July 2014

Ninoinoz said:

dyedwoolie said:
Quite. It doesn't take an immense amount of googling to find stories from all 4 major parties (as it stands) involving allegations of paedophilia.
This is about possible establishment cover up, the establishment of 30 years ago. It falls to the government of the day to lead the investigation and clear up an alleged historic mess.
Anybody trying to obtain 21st century electoral advantage is going to fall flat on their face, or be pushed there.
*** IMPORTANT ADVICE FOR PBers***

When confronted with such bollocks as above concerning political parties or the BBC, try the following thought experiment:

Imagine the poster is His Grace the Roman Catholic Bishop of Such-and-Such Diocese and the child abusers concerned are Roman Catholic clergy.

Example:
Bishop of Somewhere in Ireland said:
Quite. It doesn't take an immense amount of googling to find stories from all major religions involving allegations of paedophilia.
This is about possible Church cover up, the Church of 30 years ago. It falls to the Bishops of the day to lead the investigation and clear up an alleged historic mess.
Anybody trying to obtain 21st century political advantage is going to fall flat on their face, or be pushed there.

Perhaps you ought to give some thought as to the most effective way of tackling the alleged cover up rather than spouting silage in the hope that some will stick somewhere.
There are alleged victims to consider, although you seem content to ignore that.
Perhaps PBers might like to consider that before ingesting your nonsense

Ninoinoz · July 2014

dyedwoolie said:
And nor were the current cabinet or most of the government at the time of the allegations, and it is they that will lead the investigation and take the plaudits for exposing any historic wrongdoing that is discovered and prosecuted,

The key thing is, of course, to see justice for anyone who was abused, and to see that the peoples representatives are unbiased and diligent in ensuring that occurs. If others want to try and score votes over it, they do so at the risk of their own conscience.

Another chance for the Tories to detoxify, by outing historic demons and seeing them pay.

And after being put through the Clerical Child Abuse translator:

Bishop of dyedwoolie said:
And nor were current priests or most of the clergy at the time of the allegations, and it is they that will lead the investigation and take the plaudits for exposing any historic wrongdoing that is discovered and prosecuted,

The key thing is, of course, to see justice for anyone who was abused, and to see that the clergy are unbiased and diligent in ensuring that occurs. If others want to try and score anti-Catholic points over it, they do so at the risk of their own conscience.

Another chance for the Roman Catholic Church to detoxify, by outing historic demons and seeing them pay.

Frankly, I couldn't help laughing as I typed it in.

AndyJS · July 2014

"Vanessa Feltz today reveals how sex attacker Rolf Harris assaulted her live on TV."

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/487026/Vanessa-Feltz-Rolf-Harris-Sex-Offence-Sentence-Guilty-Radio-Column-TV-Show-Assault

Pulpstar · July 2014

A priest, an MP and a BBC TV presenter walk into a ..

I'll stop there ^_~

Ninoinoz · July 2014

AveryLP said:

isam said:

dyedwoolie said:

Ishmael_X said:

isam said:

NickPalmer said:

...
...
I see your point, but it doesn't work both ways because you can't accuse people of paedophilia in the same way as you can accuse them of saying things which they have demonstrably, actually said. If UKIP tries to make capital out of this the press will find UKIP sex offenders as sure as eggs is eggs, and the argument that this isn't about sex offenders, it's about Westminster sex offenders and cover ups, will cut no ice with anyone. It may not be fair, but that's the way it is.
Quite. It doesn't take an immense amount of googling to find stories from all 4 major parties (as it stands) involving allegations of paedophilia.
This is about possible establishment cover up, the establishment of 30 years ago. It falls to the government of the day to lead the investigation and clear up an alleged historic mess.
Anybody trying to obtain 21st century electoral advantage is going to fall flat on their face, or be pushed there.
I haven't seen any links to UKIP politicians and paedophilia.. I have seen plenty from the other three... are you sure?

Its not about seeking electoral advantage, it just is that way.

UKIP wont have to sell this story. If it turns out that a major party was covering up Paedophila in the 80s, people will feel less inclined to vote for that party in 2015. It is human nature, fair or unfair
.
It cant be helped that UKIP didn't have any politicians at the time. It is lucky for them that its the case...

“Yes I am pro bestiality and necrophilia being legalised as you ask. Why should the state tell me I cant?… the animal was never human, the corpse is no longer human… if people want to do it and want it to be done to them whats wrong with it? …when your dead are you alive? no. so are you a living human being? no your a shell, your not a person anymore … hey dont have to, they arent a person anymore, theyre property, its like having sex with your pillow.”

A public statement by Olly Neville who, at the time, was Youth Chairman of UKIP. Subsequently sacked he went on to write about the sacking and his views of UKIP in the Independent:

See here: http://ind.pn/1oxplgB

Is that really the best you can do?

Blimey, are you Tories in trouble!

dyedwoolie · July 2014

Ninoinoz said:

dyedwoolie said:
And nor were the current cabinet or most of the government at the time of the allegations, and it is they that will lead the investigation and take the plaudits for exposing any historic wrongdoing that is discovered and prosecuted,

The key thing is, of course, to see justice for anyone who was abused, and to see that the peoples representatives are unbiased and diligent in ensuring that occurs. If others want to try and score votes over it, they do so at the risk of their own conscience.

Another chance for the Tories to detoxify, by outing historic demons and seeing them pay.
And after being put through the Clerical Child Abuse translator:
Bishop of dyedwoolie said:
And nor were current priests or most of the clergy at the time of the allegations, and it is they that will lead the investigation and take the plaudits for exposing any historic wrongdoing that is discovered and prosecuted,

The key thing is, of course, to see justice for anyone who was abused, and to see that the clergy are unbiased and diligent in ensuring that occurs. If others want to try and score anti-Catholic points over it, they do so at the risk of their own conscience.

Another chance for the Roman Catholic Church to detoxify, by outing historic demons and seeing them pay.
Frankly, I couldn't help laughing as I typed it in.

I bet you couldn't. You seem to be thoroughly enjoying what is alleged to have happened to innocent children.

Ninoinoz · July 2014

dyedwoolie said:
Perhaps you ought to give some thought as to the most effective way of tackling the alleged cover up rather than spouting silage in the hope that some will stick somewhere.
There are alleged victims to consider, although you seem content to ignore that.
Perhaps PBers might like to consider that before ingesting your nonsense

I already have. Try reading this:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Report_%28Catholic_Church%29

I have, as requested by PB Moderator, backed up all accusations with links from newspapers.

I have also answered AveryLP's questions - he's gone all quiet now.

Also, "Won't someone think of the children?" is too pathetic for words as a deflector.

As far as ignoring victims is concerned, I doubt that any of the kids raped have received any compensation - not that you or AveryLP care.

MrJones · July 2014

Ishmael_X said:

isam said:

NickPalmer said:
I did get one voter today saying that she wasn't going to vote since ALL politicians seemed be either corrupt or paedophiles or both - she politely said that she had no specific suspicion of me but it seemed to her to be universal. She abstained last time too, though.

In general I doubt if there will be or should be partisan consequences if any particular elderly former MPs are prosecuted. I'm as partisan as anyone but I wouldn't suggest that if a former Tory MP X was involved, that told us anything about Tories in general.
There a re paedophilia stories about Tories, Labour and Lib Dems from the 80s, and I wouldn't think for a minute that it meant any of the parties now were that way inclined, nor should it mean that any of its MPs are

But...

If you dig around for one UKIP councillors facebook or twitter page, and then extrapolate their views to smear the whole party time and time and time again... don't complain when these unfair extrapolations come back to bite

I kept hearing before the Euros that politics wasn't fair, and that this was the way it is.. welcome to the big league etc... well it works both ways
I see your point, but it doesn't work both ways because you can't accuse people of paedophilia in the same way as you can accuse them of saying things which they have demonstrably, actually said. If UKIP tries to make capital out of this the press will find UKIP sex offenders as sure as eggs is eggs, and the argument that this isn't about sex offenders, it's about Westminster sex offenders and cover ups, will cut no ice with anyone. It may not be fair, but that's the way it is.

"If UKIP tries to make capital out of this the press will find UKIP sex offenders as sure as eggs is eggs, and the argument that this isn't about sex offenders, it's about Westminster sex offenders and cover ups, will cut no ice with anyone."

spot on

dyedwoolie · July 2014

The question, of course, is whether the three main UK Westminster parties are able to control their instinct to cover each other in sewage and come up with a united and proper response, handed over to the relevant authorities to investigate and prosecute without interference or influence.
If they can't then, sure, the 'moderate' fringe will benefit.
Then there's the question of how the press will deal with it. On party lines according to their editorial policy, with hypocritical outrage, or in some other innovative way?

Ninoinoz · July 2014

dyedwoolie said:
I bet you couldn't. You seem to be thoroughly enjoying what is alleged to have happened to innocent children.

I certainly am enjoying those secular totems of the BBC and NHS getting a thoroughly deserved kicking.

Futhermore, I'm enjoying those secular power-worshippers in the three major parties getting an even more deserved kicking.

The template has already been set by the treatment of the Roman Catholic Church in this country, I am merely applying it without bias to secular institutions.

AveryLP · July 2014

Ninoinoz said:

dyedwoolie said:
Perhaps you ought to give some thought as to the most effective way of tackling the alleged cover up rather than spouting silage in the hope that some will stick somewhere.
There are alleged victims to consider, although you seem content to ignore that.
Perhaps PBers might like to consider that before ingesting your nonsense
I already have. Try reading this:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Report_%28Catholic_Church%29

I have, as requested by PB Moderator, backed up all accusations with links from newspapers.

I have also answered AveryLP's questions - he's gone all quiet now.

Also, "Won't someone think of the children?" is too pathetic for words as a deflector.

As far as ignoring victims is concerned, I doubt that any of the kids raped have received any compensation - not that you or AveryLP care.

Nino

I have gone all quiet, as I cannot think of much further to say after providing documentary evidence that a senior UKIP officer had argued in public that people should be free from legal constraint to perform acts of bestiality and necrophilia.

What more could be said in all decency?

Think of the poor animals and corpses. I doubt they will receive any compensation.

isam · July 2014

AveryLP said:

isam said:

dyedwoolie said:

Ishmael_X said:

isam said:

NickPalmer said:

...
...
I see your point, but it doesn't work both ways because you can't accuse people of paedophilia in the same way as you can accuse them of saying things which they have demonstrably, actually said. If UKIP tries to make capital out of this the press will find UKIP sex offenders as sure as eggs is eggs, and the argument that this isn't about sex offenders, it's about Westminster sex offenders and cover ups, will cut no ice with anyone. It may not be fair, but that's the way it is.
Quite. It doesn't take an immense amount of googling to find stories from all 4 major parties (as it stands) involving allegations of paedophilia.
This is about possible establishment cover up, the establishment of 30 years ago. It falls to the government of the day to lead the investigation and clear up an alleged historic mess.
Anybody trying to obtain 21st century electoral advantage is going to fall flat on their face, or be pushed there.
I haven't seen any links to UKIP politicians and paedophilia.. I have seen plenty from the other three... are you sure?

Its not about seeking electoral advantage, it just is that way.

UKIP wont have to sell this story. If it turns out that a major party was covering up Paedophila in the 80s, people will feel less inclined to vote for that party in 2015. It is human nature, fair or unfair
.
It cant be helped that UKIP didn't have any politicians at the time. It is lucky for them that its the case...

“Yes I am pro bestiality and necrophilia being legalised as you ask. Why should the state tell me I cant?… the animal was never human, the corpse is no longer human… if people want to do it and want it to be done to them whats wrong with it? …when your dead are you alive? no. so are you a living human being? no your a shell, your not a person anymore … hey dont have to, they arent a person anymore, theyre property, its like having sex with your pillow.”

A public statement by Olly Neville who, at the time, was Youth Chairman of UKIP. Subsequently sacked he went on to write about the sacking and his views of UKIP in the Independent:

See here: http://ind.pn/1oxplgB

Michael shrimpton

dyedwoolie · July 2014

Ninoinoz said:

dyedwoolie said:
Perhaps you ought to give some thought as to the most effective way of tackling the alleged cover up rather than spouting silage in the hope that some will stick somewhere.
There are alleged victims to consider, although you seem content to ignore that.
Perhaps PBers might like to consider that before ingesting your nonsense
I already have. Try reading this:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Report_%28Catholic_Church%29

I have, as requested by PB Moderator, backed up all accusations with links from newspapers.

I have also answered AveryLP's questions - he's gone all quiet now.

Also, "Won't someone think of the children?" is too pathetic for words as a deflector.

As far as ignoring victims is concerned, I doubt that any of the kids raped have received any compensation - not that you or AveryLP care.

No, they won't have done. They might on successful prosecution of perpetrators, which is the whole point. I'm merely pointing out that the idea this is some sort of 2014 cover up of a 1980 something cover up is tenuous at best. Unless of course a proper investigation proves it to be the case, in which case, they can all go hang (or rather spend the required amount of time in prison.
Do I care? Yes.
Do you? Probably, but you seem more intent on venting your spleen and comparing people yo catholic bishops (which if you knew the first thing about me is ridiculously misjudged)rather then discussing the issue in the sober manner it demands

MrJones · July 2014

Ishmael_X said:

The point is there is nothing Westminster specific about paedophilia, look at Rolf. It's not like fiddling parliamentary expenses. I imagine that Ukip has neither more than fewer than the average number in its ranks, except that if we are focusing on paedophiles active in the 1980s and if Ukip membership is disproportionately elderly and male, when you adjust for that it is likely have rather more, for purely demographic reasons. So not a terribly good argument for Ukip to get involved in.

The actual percentage is probably no different but the specific part lies in the greater ability to cover it up which leads to individuals getting away with it which leads to more victims than there otherwise might have been.

Also, getting away with it leads to a possibility of a self-protecting group forming which leads to more victims also.

edit: a function of power rather than party

Ninoinoz · July 2014

dyedwoolie said:
The question, of course, is whether the three main UK Westminster parties are able to control their instinct to cover each other in sewage and come up with a united and proper response, handed over to the relevant authorities to investigate and prosecute without interference or influence.
If they can't then, sure, the 'moderate' fringe will benefit.
Then there's the question of how the press will deal with it. On party lines according to their editorial policy, with hypocritical outrage, or in some other innovative way?

The press will attack the parties without mercy, except, perhaps, The Guardian.

Take it from me, you don't get volunteers to defend a organisation affected by child abuse.

The newspapers have no skin in the game (no schools, no child employees, no child audiences or 'guests'). They have a completely free hand in this.

And why should they back off? The parties have thrown them under the bus over Leveson, so they are merely returning the compliment.

The main parties are certainly "All in it together."

AveryLP · July 2014

isam said:

AveryLP said:

isam said:

dyedwoolie said:

Ishmael_X said:

isam said:

NickPalmer said:

...
...
I see your point, but it doesn't work both ways because you can't accuse people of paedophilia in the same way as you can accuse them of saying things which they have demonstrably, actually said. If UKIP tries to make capital out of this the press will find UKIP sex offenders as sure as eggs is eggs, and the argument that this isn't about sex offenders, it's about Westminster sex offenders and cover ups, will cut no ice with anyone. It may not be fair, but that's the way it is.
Quite. It doesn't take an immense amount of googling to find stories from all 4 major parties (as it stands) involving allegations of paedophilia.
This is about possible establishment cover up, the establishment of 30 years ago. It falls to the government of the day to lead the investigation and clear up an alleged historic mess.
Anybody trying to obtain 21st century electoral advantage is going to fall flat on their face, or be pushed there.
I haven't seen any links to UKIP politicians and paedophilia.. I have seen plenty from the other three... are you sure?

Its not about seeking electoral advantage, it just is that way.

UKIP wont have to sell this story. If it turns out that a major party was covering up Paedophila in the 80s, people will feel less inclined to vote for that party in 2015. It is human nature, fair or unfair
.
It cant be helped that UKIP didn't have any politicians at the time. It is lucky for them that its the case...

“Yes I am pro bestiality and necrophilia being legalised as you ask. Why should the state tell me I cant?… the animal was never human, the corpse is no longer human… if people want to do it and want it to be done to them whats wrong with it? …when your dead are you alive? no. so are you a living human being? no your a shell, your not a person anymore … hey dont have to, they arent a person anymore, theyre property, its like having sex with your pillow.”

A public statement by Olly Neville who, at the time, was Youth Chairman of UKIP. Subsequently sacked he went on to write about the sacking and his views of UKIP in the Independent:

See here: http://ind.pn/1oxplgB
Michael shrimpton

The Kiwi cricketer?

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Reminder: The PB Yorkshire gathering – Flying Duck Ilkley M

Comments

Categories