Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There's nothing new under the sun. Vested interests have sought to manipulate the decision-making process since time began. Just look at the size of the lobbying industry around Westminster - a.k.a. public affairs consultancies, communication agencies etc. Whereas once these vested interests would use the media of TV and newspapers to influence voters, now they can reach them directly via the internet. The technology and method has changed, but the practice is as old as the hills. " Maybe so, but when it is directly used to manipulate millions of people it is a lot more dystopian. We should ensure that Facebook et al have to publish who funds political advertising. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Maybe so, but when it is directly used to manipulate millions of people it is a lot more dystopian. We should ensure that Facebook et al have to publish who funds political advertising. " These people have manipulating millions of people for years, via the mainstream media. Social media lets them by-pass the mainstream media and speak directly to you | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"& now being formally investigated by the ICO, so this might get a bit pointy. It has to be good that we are looking at manipulation and trying to lessen it." The fact that James Eadie QC *representing Theresa May* stated in court *unchallenged* that Brexit had met the threshold for illegality. And that had it had been legally binding there would be statutory means by which it would be annulled. But the only reason it is not (cannot) be is because it was not binding, and only advisory. Just let that sink in for a minute. Especially all of you bleating on about 'we won, get over it'. May's *own QC* has stated that they think that Brexit would have been illegal, but only due to the fact that it was not legally binding has it been able to continue without being annulled. So May's *own barrister* in court has admitted as defence for May that yes, it would be deemed illegal, but she is OK because it was not legally binding. Her. Own. Barrister. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"& now being formally investigated by the ICO, so this might get a bit pointy. It has to be good that we are looking at manipulation and trying to lessen it. The fact that James Eadie QC *representing Theresa May* stated in court *unchallenged* that Brexit had met the threshold for illegality. And that had it had been legally binding there would be statutory means by which it would be annulled. But the only reason it is not (cannot) be is because it was not binding, and only advisory. Just let that sink in for a minute. Especially all of you bleating on about 'we won, get over it'. May's *own QC* has stated that they think that Brexit would have been illegal, but only due to the fact that it was not legally binding has it been able to continue without being annulled. So May's *own barrister* in court has admitted as defence for May that yes, it would be deemed illegal, but she is OK because it was not legally binding. Her. Own. Barrister. -Matt" What possible difference does this make? We had a referendum and one side one . There is little point in analysing this now. The time to campaign and make points was during the campaign and not after it. The winning side was that which ran the best organised campaign and one which represented the opinions of the majority of the population. In am not quite certain why anyone would pay any attention to what a barrister has to say in court . They are hardly the driving forces behind many of the highly success businesses in the UK which keep us all in employment or generate enough dividend income in order to pay pensioners their pensions. A win is a win regardless of circumstances. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"& now being formally investigated by the ICO, so this might get a bit pointy. It has to be good that we are looking at manipulation and trying to lessen it. The fact that James Eadie QC *representing Theresa May* stated in court *unchallenged* that Brexit had met the threshold for illegality. And that had it had been legally binding there would be statutory means by which it would be annulled. But the only reason it is not (cannot) be is because it was not binding, and only advisory. Just let that sink in for a minute. Especially all of you bleating on about 'we won, get over it'. May's *own QC* has stated that they think that Brexit would have been illegal, but only due to the fact that it was not legally binding has it been able to continue without being annulled. So May's *own barrister* in court has admitted as defence for May that yes, it would be deemed illegal, but she is OK because it was not legally binding. Her. Own. Barrister. -Matt What possible difference does this make? We had a referendum and one side one . There is little point in analysing this now. The time to campaign and make points was during the campaign and not after it. The winning side was that which ran the best organised campaign and one which represented the opinions of the majority of the population. In am not quite certain why anyone would pay any attention to what a barrister has to say in court . They are hardly the driving forces behind many of the highly success businesses in the UK which keep us all in employment or generate enough dividend income in order to pay pensioners their pensions. A win is a win regardless of circumstances." The Liars won & said barristers will get them soon. A democracy isn’t just about who gets the most votes (in an advisory vote), it is based on trust and it is clear we have been gamed by Brexiteers. No matter what the result, the people peddling the lies should be held to account. Surely you would agree to that? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"& now being formally investigated by the ICO, so this might get a bit pointy. It has to be good that we are looking at manipulation and trying to lessen it. The fact that James Eadie QC *representing Theresa May* stated in court *unchallenged* that Brexit had met the threshold for illegality. And that had it had been legally binding there would be statutory means by which it would be annulled. But the only reason it is not (cannot) be is because it was not binding, and only advisory. Just let that sink in for a minute. Especially all of you bleating on about 'we won, get over it'. May's *own QC* has stated that they think that Brexit would have been illegal, but only due to the fact that it was not legally binding has it been able to continue without being annulled. So May's *own barrister* in court has admitted as defence for May that yes, it would be deemed illegal, but she is OK because it was not legally binding. Her. Own. Barrister. -Matt What possible difference does this make? We had a referendum and one side one . There is little point in analysing this now. The time to campaign and make points was during the campaign and not after it. The winning side was that which ran the best organised campaign and one which represented the opinions of the majority of the population. In am not quite certain why anyone would pay any attention to what a barrister has to say in court . They are hardly the driving forces behind many of the highly success businesses in the UK which keep us all in employment or generate enough dividend income in order to pay pensioners their pensions. A win is a win regardless of circumstances." "A win is a win regardless of circumstances". So regardless of our democracy being run roughshod over, deliberate criminal acts taking place to subvert our political system and our country. But regardless of all that, any hole's a goal for you? I am now starting to believe that you are just a paid agitator... just a very rubbish, unsubtle one. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"& now being formally investigated by the ICO, so this might get a bit pointy. It has to be good that we are looking at manipulation and trying to lessen it. The fact that James Eadie QC *representing Theresa May* stated in court *unchallenged* that Brexit had met the threshold for illegality. And that had it had been legally binding there would be statutory means by which it would be annulled. But the only reason it is not (cannot) be is because it was not binding, and only advisory. Just let that sink in for a minute. Especially all of you bleating on about 'we won, get over it'. May's *own QC* has stated that they think that Brexit would have been illegal, but only due to the fact that it was not legally binding has it been able to continue without being annulled. So May's *own barrister* in court has admitted as defence for May that yes, it would be deemed illegal, but she is OK because it was not legally binding. Her. Own. Barrister. -Matt What possible difference does this make? We had a referendum and one side one . There is little point in analysing this now. The time to campaign and make points was during the campaign and not after it. The winning side was that which ran the best organised campaign and one which represented the opinions of the majority of the population. In am not quite certain why anyone would pay any attention to what a barrister has to say in court . They are hardly the driving forces behind many of the highly success businesses in the UK which keep us all in employment or generate enough dividend income in order to pay pensioners their pensions. A win is a win regardless of circumstances." Interesting - so you believe fraudulent claims and dishonesty are acceptable in a modern democratic nation and by defending corrupt practices and denigrating the PM’s QC ( Queens Counsel ) you are a winner! No fool like an old fool is there! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"& now being formally investigated by the ICO, so this might get a bit pointy. It has to be good that we are looking at manipulation and trying to lessen it. The fact that James Eadie QC *representing Theresa May* stated in court *unchallenged* that Brexit had met the threshold for illegality. And that had it had been legally binding there would be statutory means by which it would be annulled. But the only reason it is not (cannot) be is because it was not binding, and only advisory. Just let that sink in for a minute. Especially all of you bleating on about 'we won, get over it'. May's *own QC* has stated that they think that Brexit would have been illegal, but only due to the fact that it was not legally binding has it been able to continue without being annulled. So May's *own barrister* in court has admitted as defence for May that yes, it would be deemed illegal, but she is OK because it was not legally binding. Her. Own. Barrister. -Matt What possible difference does this make? We had a referendum and one side one . There is little point in analysing this now. The time to campaign and make points was during the campaign and not after it. The winning side was that which ran the best organised campaign and one which represented the opinions of the majority of the population. In am not quite certain why anyone would pay any attention to what a barrister has to say in court . They are hardly the driving forces behind many of the highly success businesses in the UK which keep us all in employment or generate enough dividend income in order to pay pensioners their pensions. A win is a win regardless of circumstances. "A win is a win regardless of circumstances". So regardless of our democracy being run roughshod over, deliberate criminal acts taking place to subvert our political system and our country. But regardless of all that, any hole's a goal for you? I am now starting to believe that you are just a paid agitator... just a very rubbish, unsubtle one. -Matt" Where is Centy these days? I imagine he is still turning right, and forever lost in the dense fog of his imagination | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"& now being formally investigated by the ICO, so this might get a bit pointy. It has to be good that we are looking at manipulation and trying to lessen it. The fact that James Eadie QC *representing Theresa May* stated in court *unchallenged* that Brexit had met the threshold for illegality. And that had it had been legally binding there would be statutory means by which it would be annulled. But the only reason it is not (cannot) be is because it was not binding, and only advisory. Just let that sink in for a minute. Especially all of you bleating on about 'we won, get over it'. May's *own QC* has stated that they think that Brexit would have been illegal, but only due to the fact that it was not legally binding has it been able to continue without being annulled. So May's *own barrister* in court has admitted as defence for May that yes, it would be deemed illegal, but she is OK because it was not legally binding. Her. Own. Barrister. -Matt What possible difference does this make? We had a referendum and one side one . There is little point in analysing this now. The time to campaign and make points was during the campaign and not after it. The winning side was that which ran the best organised campaign and one which represented the opinions of the majority of the population. In am not quite certain why anyone would pay any attention to what a barrister has to say in court . They are hardly the driving forces behind many of the highly success businesses in the UK which keep us all in employment or generate enough dividend income in order to pay pensioners their pensions. A win is a win regardless of circumstances. Interesting - so you believe fraudulent claims and dishonesty are acceptable in a modern democratic nation and by defending corrupt practices and denigrating the PM’s QC ( Queens Counsel ) you are a winner! No fool like an old fool is there! "Who said anything about fraudulent claims and dishonesty? My understanding is that there was a referendum , votes counted and a result declared . No one has put forward any creditable evidence to invalidate the result. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"& now being formally investigated by the ICO, so this might get a bit pointy. It has to be good that we are looking at manipulation and trying to lessen it. The fact that James Eadie QC *representing Theresa May* stated in court *unchallenged* that Brexit had met the threshold for illegality. And that had it had been legally binding there would be statutory means by which it would be annulled. But the only reason it is not (cannot) be is because it was not binding, and only advisory. Just let that sink in for a minute. Especially all of you bleating on about 'we won, get over it'. May's *own QC* has stated that they think that Brexit would have been illegal, but only due to the fact that it was not legally binding has it been able to continue without being annulled. So May's *own barrister* in court has admitted as defence for May that yes, it would be deemed illegal, but she is OK because it was not legally binding. Her. Own. Barrister. -Matt What possible difference does this make? We had a referendum and one side one . There is little point in analysing this now. The time to campaign and make points was during the campaign and not after it. The winning side was that which ran the best organised campaign and one which represented the opinions of the majority of the population. In am not quite certain why anyone would pay any attention to what a barrister has to say in court . They are hardly the driving forces behind many of the highly success businesses in the UK which keep us all in employment or generate enough dividend income in order to pay pensioners their pensions. A win is a win regardless of circumstances. Interesting - so you believe fraudulent claims and dishonesty are acceptable in a modern democratic nation and by defending corrupt practices and denigrating the PM’s QC ( Queens Counsel ) you are a winner! No fool like an old fool is there! Who said anything about fraudulent claims and dishonesty?
My understanding is that there was a referendum , votes counted and a result declared .
No one has put forward any creditable evidence to invalidate the result. "Yes they have. If the referendum had been legally binding the result would have been overturned. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"& now being formally investigated by the ICO, so this might get a bit pointy. It has to be good that we are looking at manipulation and trying to lessen it. The fact that James Eadie QC *representing Theresa May* stated in court *unchallenged* that Brexit had met the threshold for illegality. And that had it had been legally binding there would be statutory means by which it would be annulled. But the only reason it is not (cannot) be is because it was not binding, and only advisory. Just let that sink in for a minute. Especially all of you bleating on about 'we won, get over it'. May's *own QC* has stated that they think that Brexit would have been illegal, but only due to the fact that it was not legally binding has it been able to continue without being annulled. So May's *own barrister* in court has admitted as defence for May that yes, it would be deemed illegal, but she is OK because it was not legally binding. Her. Own. Barrister. -Matt What possible difference does this make? We had a referendum and one side one . There is little point in analysing this now. The time to campaign and make points was during the campaign and not after it. The winning side was that which ran the best organised campaign and one which represented the opinions of the majority of the population. In am not quite certain why anyone would pay any attention to what a barrister has to say in court . They are hardly the driving forces behind many of the highly success businesses in the UK which keep us all in employment or generate enough dividend income in order to pay pensioners their pensions. A win is a win regardless of circumstances. Interesting - so you believe fraudulent claims and dishonesty are acceptable in a modern democratic nation and by defending corrupt practices and denigrating the PM’s QC ( Queens Counsel ) you are a winner! No fool like an old fool is there! Who said anything about fraudulent claims and dishonesty?
My understanding is that there was a referendum , votes counted and a result declared .
No one has put forward any creditable evidence to invalidate the result. "Yeah but your understanding of shit is dubious at best.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-has-cost-economy-550-million-a-week-since-referendum-report-finds-a4109216.html For those who think it's going well have a look at this! Instead of saving £350m per week, we're spending £550m per week, so our sovereignty is costing £200m per week - now that's what I call project fear!" Goldman Sachs estimated it to be £700m per week Bank of England estimated £900m per week. In any case. Flushing the UK down the bog is an expensive business. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"& now being formally investigated by the ICO, so this might get a bit pointy. It has to be good that we are looking at manipulation and trying to lessen it. The fact that James Eadie QC *representing Theresa May* stated in court *unchallenged* that Brexit had met the threshold for illegality. And that had it had been legally binding there would be statutory means by which it would be annulled. But the only reason it is not (cannot) be is because it was not binding, and only advisory. Just let that sink in for a minute. Especially all of you bleating on about 'we won, get over it'. May's *own QC* has stated that they think that Brexit would have been illegal, but only due to the fact that it was not legally binding has it been able to continue without being annulled. So May's *own barrister* in court has admitted as defence for May that yes, it would be deemed illegal, but she is OK because it was not legally binding. Her. Own. Barrister. -Matt" It hardly matters what a barrister representing one person in court say. They are simply in court to earn money. What matters is what the electorate wants . We had a referendum and a result was declared. It seems very straight forward to me. Unless a lot of people made fraudulent registrations to vote there is nothing to discuss . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"& now being formally investigated by the ICO, so this might get a bit pointy. It has to be good that we are looking at manipulation and trying to lessen it. The fact that James Eadie QC *representing Theresa May* stated in court *unchallenged* that Brexit had met the threshold for illegality. And that had it had been legally binding there would be statutory means by which it would be annulled. But the only reason it is not (cannot) be is because it was not binding, and only advisory. Just let that sink in for a minute. Especially all of you bleating on about 'we won, get over it'. May's *own QC* has stated that they think that Brexit would have been illegal, but only due to the fact that it was not legally binding has it been able to continue without being annulled. So May's *own barrister* in court has admitted as defence for May that yes, it would be deemed illegal, but she is OK because it was not legally binding. Her. Own. Barrister. -Matt It hardly matters what a barrister representing one person in court say. They are simply in court to earn money. What matters is what the electorate wants . We had a referendum and a result was declared. It seems very straight forward to me. Unless a lot of people made fraudulent registrations to vote there is nothing to discuss . " People like Coldplay and voted for he nazis. You can’t trust people. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So it seems tha Lynton Crosby’s CTF Partners have spent £1m on secretive ‘grass roots’ targeted adds on Facebook. This is the man who part funds and works with BJ and Stewart Jackson. The purpose was to pretend they were a grass roots campaign to get people to write/email to their MPs to support the Brexit leave position. It seems the ‘establishment’ are playing us all. If it wasn’t for this underhand manipulation trying to encourage people they were in a majority, would we be in a different position now? Whois paying for us all to be deceived, ultimately clearly all of us, but who is funding this? (Source Guardian,)" https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=oFb7u1r7f3A | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There's nothing new under the sun. Vested interests have sought to manipulate the decision-making process since time began. Just look at the size of the lobbying industry around Westminster - a.k.a. public affairs consultancies, communication agencies etc. Whereas once these vested interests would use the media of TV and newspapers to influence voters, now they can reach them directly via the internet. The technology and method has changed, but the practice is as old as the hills. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There's nothing new under the sun. Vested interests have sought to manipulate the decision-making process since time began. Just look at the size of the lobbying industry around Westminster - a.k.a. public affairs consultancies, communication agencies etc. Whereas once these vested interests would use the media of TV and newspapers to influence voters, now they can reach them directly via the internet. The technology and method has changed, but the practice is as old as the hills. "& what makes it acceptable?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
