Yes or no to the AV?

21 Apr 2011

Am I wrong in thinking that the queen shares her birthday with Adolf Hitler and Sadam Hussein?
I'm afraid the pressures of work will prevent me from forum chatting for a time, but I shall look forward to sparring with you again.A worthy opponent . wink

100% wrong on both of those birthdays.
Adolf Hitler 20th April
Sadam Hussein 28th April
The old git has 2 to choose from and neither fit unfortunately.

21 Apr 2011

Quote by robbo-bi1
Am I wrong in thinking that the queen shares her birthday with Adolf Hitler and Sadam Hussein?
I'm afraid the pressures of work will prevent me from forum chatting for a time, but I shall look forward to sparring with you again.A worthy opponent .

100% wrong on both of those birthdays.
Adolf Hitler 20th April
Sadam Hussein 28th April
The old git has 2 to choose from and neither fit unfortunately.
Interesting that they should be born at roughly the same time of the year and have so many qualities in common though-and the fixed flags in Regent Street would not have seemed strange to someone going to a street party in Nuremburg in the 1930s.
Seig Heil, Your Majesty!

21 Apr 2011

Quote by sexyslut79
Am I wrong in thinking that the queen shares her birthday with Adolf Hitler and Sadam Hussein?

yes you are

Quote by robbo
100% wrong on both of those birthdays.
Adolf Hitler 20th April
Sadam Hussein 28th April

Quote by sexyslut79
Interesting that they should be born at roughly the same time of the year

make your mind up as they are not the same thing
off with your hed :notes:

21 Apr 2011

Aww, gawd.
The Cambridge Dictionary:
lecturer noun
Definition:
someone who teaches at a college or university.
If a university lecturer is not a teacher, and post grads are past the stage of being impressionable - ie not in their place to be influenced in the furtherance of their education...
What do lecturers actually do to command their salary and why do post grads actually bother going back to university?
No wonder the UK educational system is in such a fucking mess with lecturers who don't teach (but admit to smoking odd smelling substances whilst sat under a tree) and students who are not at University to learn.
Beggars belief.
Incidentally, the nuances of the double entendre in my reference to gravity seem to have been lost on you. Perhaps your mind was elsewhere?

21 Apr 2011

Quote by sexyslut79

How do you know that foreign nationals are attracted to the UK by the lure of benefits? Are you privy to the statistics?

The entire post you quoted from myself was nothing but opinion, with no facts, figures or knowledge to speak of.
Really? Well if you need some facts, figures and knowledge to back up your opinion I'm sure you can find them in such erudite publications as The Sun (which is owned by a foreign national) and The Daily Mail.
Thank you for your guidance. I have no wish to read the Daily Mail, and I hate the Sun with a passion.

21 Apr 2011

Quote by GnV
Aww, gawd.
The Cambridge Dictionary:
lecturer noun
Definition:
someone who teaches at a college or university.
If a university lecturer is not a teacher, and post grads are past the stage of being impressionable - ie not in their place to be influenced in the furtherance of their education...
What do lecturers actually do to command their salary and why do post grads actually bother going back to university?
No wonder the UK educational system is in such a fucking mess with lecturers who don't teach (but admit to smoking odd smelling substances whilst sat under a tree) and students who are not at University to learn.
Beggars belief.
Incidentally, the nuances of the double entendre in my reference to gravity seem to have been lost on you. Perhaps your mind was elsewhere?

Well this is the first time I have looked at this forum and it will certainly be my last. Half the people who have attacked my husband I recognise as people who have contacted us and been rejected-including the writer of this message -sour grapes perhaps, and rather pathetic in boys let alone men .Both they, and the other half moreover seem incapable of expressing themselves properly in their own language and if they can, demonstrate that their vocabularies are nonetheless limited by swearing like the writer of this message.
You may be, as my husband says "the kind of people who don't know much but think they do and are therefore fun to wind up' but I will do my utmost to persuade him to stop wasting his time debating with you. And to the rather silly man who called him an 'old git"-he is in far better shape than you will ever be and still climbs mountains in the Himalaya. You would probably collapse if you tried to get up a small hill in the South Downs .

21 Apr 2011

Quote by sexyslut79
Aww, gawd.
The Cambridge Dictionary:
lecturer noun
Definition:
someone who teaches at a college or university.
If a university lecturer is not a teacher, and post grads are past the stage of being impressionable - ie not in their place to be influenced in the furtherance of their education...
What do lecturers actually do to command their salary and why do post grads actually bother going back to university?
No wonder the UK educational system is in such a fucking mess with lecturers who don't teach (but admit to smoking odd smelling substances whilst sat under a tree) and students who are not at University to learn.
Beggars belief.
Incidentally, the nuances of the double entendre in my reference to gravity seem to have been lost on you. Perhaps your mind was elsewhere?

Well this is the first time I have looked at this forum and it will certainly be my last. Half the people who have attacked my husband I recognise as people who have contacted us and been rejected-including the writer of this message -sour grapes perhaps, and rather pathetic in boys let alone men .Both they, and the other half moreover seem incapable of expressing themselves properly in their own language and if they can, demonstrate that their vocabularies are nonetheless limited by swearing like the writer of this message.
You may be, as my husband says "the kind of people who don't know much but think they do and are therefore fun to wind up' but I will do my utmost to persuade him to stop wasting his time debating with you. And to the rather silly man who called him an 'old git"-he is in far better shape than you will ever be and still climbs mountains in the Himalaya. You would probably collapse if you tried to get up a small hill in the South Downs .
Before you go, what's your stance on AV?

21 Apr 2011

Quote by sexyslut79
Aww, gawd.
The Cambridge Dictionary:
lecturer noun
Definition:
someone who teaches at a college or university.
If a university lecturer is not a teacher, and post grads are past the stage of being impressionable - ie not in their place to be influenced in the furtherance of their education...
What do lecturers actually do to command their salary and why do post grads actually bother going back to university?
No wonder the UK educational system is in such a fucking mess with lecturers who don't teach (but admit to smoking odd smelling substances whilst sat under a tree) and students who are not at University to learn.
Beggars belief.
Incidentally, the nuances of the double entendre in my reference to gravity seem to have been lost on you. Perhaps your mind was elsewhere?

Well this is the first time I have looked at this forum and it will certainly be my last. Half the people who have attacked my husband I recognise as people who have contacted us and been rejected-including the writer of this message -sour grapes perhaps, and rather pathetic in boys let alone men .Both they, and the other half moreover seem incapable of expressing themselves properly in their own language and if they can, demonstrate that their vocabularies are nonetheless limited by swearing like the writer of this message.
You may be, as my husband says "the kind of people who don't know much but think they do and are therefore fun to wind up' but I will do my utmost to persuade him to stop wasting his time debating with you. And to the rather silly man who called him an 'old git"-he is in far better shape than you will ever be and still climbs mountains in the Himalaya. You would probably collapse if you tried to get up a small hill in the South Downs .
I sincerely hope you succeed in your persuasion.......oh, and just for the record, I certainly have never contacted you, let alone been rejected.
As for yet another cheap shot about people not being able to express themselves in their own language, some of those you are being so derisive of are actually dyslexic.
Make sure the door doesn't hit you on the way out.

21 Apr 2011

Quote by Max777
Aww, gawd.
The Cambridge Dictionary:
lecturer noun
Definition:
someone who teaches at a college or university.
If a university lecturer is not a teacher, and post grads are past the stage of being impressionable - ie not in their place to be influenced in the furtherance of their education...
What do lecturers actually do to command their salary and why do post grads actually bother going back to university?
No wonder the UK educational system is in such a fucking mess with lecturers who don't teach (but admit to smoking odd smelling substances whilst sat under a tree) and students who are not at University to learn.
Beggars belief.
Incidentally, the nuances of the double entendre in my reference to gravity seem to have been lost on you. Perhaps your mind was elsewhere?

Well this is the first time I have looked at this forum and it will certainly be my last. Half the people who have attacked my husband I recognise as people who have contacted us and been rejected-including the writer of this message -sour grapes perhaps, and rather pathetic in boys let alone men .Both they, and the other half moreover seem incapable of expressing themselves properly in their own language and if they can, demonstrate that their vocabularies are nonetheless limited by swearing like the writer of this message.
You may be, as my husband says "the kind of people who don't know much but think they do and are therefore fun to wind up' but I will do my utmost to persuade him to stop wasting his time debating with you. And to the rather silly man who called him an 'old git"-he is in far better shape than you will ever be and still climbs mountains in the Himalaya. You would probably collapse if you tried to get up a small hill in the South Downs .
I sincerely hope you succeed in your persuasion.......oh, and just for the record, I certainly have never contacted you, let alone been rejected.
As for yet another cheap shot about people not being able to express themselves in their own language, some of those you are being so derisive of are actually dyslexic.
Make sure the door doesn't hit you on the way out.
:thumbup:
sorry but sour grapes springs to mind here and i feel that gnv has expresed himself very well and argued his case very well, too well for some it av is not for them then? dunno

i hope the conkers do not fall out of that tree lol

22 Apr 2011

Quote by sexyslut79
Well this is the first time I have looked at this forum and it will certainly be my last. Half the people who have attacked my husband I recognise as people who have contacted us and been rejected-including the writer of this message -sour grapes perhaps, and rather pathetic in boys let alone men .Both they, and the other half moreover seem incapable of expressing themselves properly in their own language and if they can, demonstrate that their vocabularies are nonetheless limited by swearing like the writer of this message.
You may be, as my husband says "the kind of people who don't know much but think they do and are therefore fun to wind up' but I will do my utmost to persuade him to stop wasting his time debating with you. And to the rather silly man who called him an 'old git"-he is in far better shape than you will ever be and still climbs mountains in the Himalaya. You would probably collapse if you tried to get up a small hill in the South Downs .

fine wines and fillet steak for me not really a burger n chips man so i`m out sorry flipa

:welcome: to the forum

22 Apr 2011

Quote by Max777
I agree, most people don't know anything about the political and economic philosophies of the parties for whom they vote and that is one of the reasons political parties don't tell the whole truth when they canvass for votes. Let me give you an example. Whilst the political philosophers on whom Left parties base their views believe that the lower classes (I,m sorry, but I won't use that ridiculous, hypocritical British euphemism 'working classes-we all work for a living) are lower class because of their NURTURE, ie the economic and social conditions into which they were born, the political philosophers on whom Right parties base their views believe that the lower classes are lower class because of NATURE ie that they are unintelligent and so incapable of rising.
In the past, Right parties did not need to keep their views on this quiet because the lower classes were not allowed to vote. But as a result of the introduction of universal suffrage, the lower classes can vote now, and as they form the biggest section of society, any political party wishing to take power needs to get the support of a substantial section of this class. But they are unlikely to get it if they proclaim that these people are lower class because they are naturally unintelligent and incapable of rising. Some lower class people with a propensity for doffing their caps and tugging their forelocks might accept this, but most would probably feel insulted.
I agree that education is the key and Left parties believe very much in education and were responsible for the introduction of free education for all in every society where it exists. Right parties on the other hand do not attach so much importance to education except for the higher classes. They would rather the lower classes didn't learn too much-particularly about subjects such as political philosophy and history. That way, they won't get any ideas into their heads........
With regard to your comments on 'benefit cheats', firstly, if there wasn't such a huge gap between rich and poor, property and rents weren't so high, and a lot of peoples' wages weren't so low, people wouldn't need to cheat benefits. Secondly, as any economist knows, the 'black economy' in the UK is an integral part of the Friedmanite economy we have, and thirdly, the benefits system is the source of a huge number of peoples' incomes from the civil servants who staff it, to he companies which provide the computers, stationery, furnishings, coffee machines, security guards etc etc etc. Also picking on the few people who cheat the benefit system , whilst far easier than picking on the real cheats in our society is total their cheating amounts to a few million which, to a country like the UK is real cheats, such as the big companies and the royal parasites on the other hand cheat the country of billions and billions of pounds.

The cost of the Royal "parasites" in 2009/10 was £38million, benefit fraud and overpayment was some £3.3 billion. Your version of these statistics is as biased as everything else in your post.
just an interesting thought the pending royal wedding will alone generate 62 million pound in tourism ............seems we need a few more of this type of parasites

22 Apr 2011

Quote by sexyslut79
Aww, gawd.
The Cambridge Dictionary:
lecturer noun
Definition:
someone who teaches at a college or university.
If a university lecturer is not a teacher, and post grads are past the stage of being impressionable - ie not in their place to be influenced in the furtherance of their education...
What do lecturers actually do to command their salary and why do post grads actually bother going back to university?
No wonder the UK educational system is in such a fucking mess with lecturers who don't teach (but admit to smoking odd smelling substances whilst sat under a tree) and students who are not at University to learn.
Beggars belief.
Incidentally, the nuances of the double entendre in my reference to gravity seem to have been lost on you. Perhaps your mind was elsewhere?

Well this is the first time I have looked at this forum and it will certainly be my last. Half the people who have attacked my husband I recognise as people who have contacted us and been rejected-including the writer of this message-sour grapes perhaps, and rather pathetic in boys let alone men .Both they, and the other half moreover seem incapable of expressing themselves properly in their own language and if they can, demonstrate that their vocabularies are nonetheless limited by swearing like the writer of this message.
You may be, as my husband says "the kind of people who don't know much but think they do and are therefore fun to wind up' but I will do my utmost to persuade him to stop wasting his time debating with you. And to the rather silly man who called him an 'old git"-he is in far better shape than you will ever be and still climbs mountains in the Himalaya. You would probably collapse if you tried to get up a small hill in the South Downs .
Hmmm.. Presumably, you mean me as its my piece you have quoted. Just to set the record straight and in the interests of balance, we've never contacted you either - as others have said - let alone be rejected by you. Perhaps you're in denial over something or too full of your own self-importance?
Besides, it's somewhat crass to "name and shame" people who have contacted you and you have "rejected" - I'm not sure it is even allowed under the AUP and it certainly is not acceptable behaviour when so blatantly untrue! We don't do "druggies" I'm afraid. :shock:
Your closing comments also seem to overstep one of your husband's last comments to me in this thread:

Quote by sexyslut79
....but I shall look forward to sparring with you again.A worthy opponent .

The incorrect use of punctuation is as exactly as your husband wrote it. Seems to be the modern way of writing these days in academia as you display similar traits.
Oh well. The sparring was fun whilst it lasted. Mind the springs on the door are not too fierce for your delicate frame on your way out. If I was closer, I'd be a perfect Gentleman and hold it open for you, but you'd probably find that offensive too.

23 Apr 2011

Wooo Hooo we do get a postal vote in the Referendum after all. :thumbup:
Our votes are now signed sealed and in the hands of the postal authorities hopefully to arrive in time to be counted and bury this awful idea for another Parliament at least.

23 Apr 2011

Quote by GnV
Wooo Hooo we do get a postal vote in the Referendum after all. :thumbup:
Our votes are now signed sealed and in the hands of the postal authorities hopefully to arrive in time to be counted and bury this awful idea for another Parliament at least.

Why is it an awful idea? Not being anti here - I just don't get the argument. Can you summarise in a couple of sentences why what we have now gets a better result than AV? (Given the same bunch of lying theiving hypocrites are on offer in each case.)

23 Apr 2011

Quote by foxylady2209
Wooo Hooo we do get a postal vote in the Referendum after all. :thumbup:
Our votes are now signed sealed and in the hands of the postal authorities hopefully to arrive in time to be counted and bury this awful idea for another Parliament at least.

Why is it an awful idea? Not being anti here - I just don't get the argument. Can you summarise in a couple of sentences why what we have now gets a better result than AV? (Given the same bunch of lying theiving hypocrites are on offer in each case.)
The other way round perhaps foxy.
AV isn't a suitable solution either so why change what may already not be perfect to something equally if not less perfect?

(that's two sentences as requested btw) wink

23 Apr 2011

Quote by foxylady2209
Wooo Hooo we do get a postal vote in the Referendum after all. :thumbup:
Our votes are now signed sealed and in the hands of the postal authorities hopefully to arrive in time to be counted and bury this awful idea for another Parliament at least.

Why is it an awful idea? Not being anti here - I just don't get the argument. Can you summarise in a couple of sentences why what we have now gets a better result than AV? (Given the same bunch of lying theiving hypocrites are on offer in each case.)
is that the same as thieving wink

good job guls never spotted that aye bolt

23 Apr 2011

Quote by GnV
Wooo Hooo we do get a postal vote in the Referendum after all. :thumbup:
Our votes are now signed sealed and in the hands of the postal authorities hopefully to arrive in time to be counted and bury this awful idea for another Parliament at least.

Why is it an awful idea? Not being anti here - I just don't get the argument. Can you summarise in a couple of sentences why what we have now gets a better result than AV? (Given the same bunch of lying theiving hypocrites are on offer in each case.)
The other way round perhaps foxy.
AV isn't a suitable solution either so why change what may already not be perfect to something equally if not less perfect?

(that's two sentences as requested btw) wink

But not being any better doesn't make it 'awful'.

23 Apr 2011

The plain and simple fact is, almost all of the Political parties use it to elect the leader of the party.
The present system, is the only way the big 2, can win an election.
Thats why they want to keep things as they are.
Every single MP that claimed expenses that they then had to pay back, should have been banned from the house of commons for life.
Submitting a false claim, for something that they knew wasnt right, is the same as THEFT.
Dont really care what party or what it was for.
Role on the day, when only MPs that have been voted in by the majority, sit in the house.
I for one will be voting YES! YES! YES!

23 Apr 2011

My feeling is David Cameron(Con) is against it and Stephen Fry is for it - so I will vote Yes.

23 Apr 2011

Quote by robbo-bi1
The plain and simple fact is, almost all of the Political parties use it to elect the leader of the party.
The present system, is the only way the big 2, can win an election.
Thats why they want to keep things as they are.
Every single MP that claimed expenses that they then had to pay back, should have been banned from the house of commons for life.
Submitting a false claim, for something that they knew wasnt right, is the same as THEFT.
Dont really care what party or what it was for.
Role on the day, when only MPs that have been voted in by the majority, sit in the house.

I for one will be voting YES! YES! YES!

I thought they use the STVS (Single Transferable Vote System) which is NOT the same as AV :shock:
Don't vote for something you think you know the answer to. Leave matters as they are.
My role on the day, if the weather is nice, is to sit outside and enjoy the sunshine wink

26 Apr 2011

I will vote no, just cos Nick Clegg is voting yes.
Otherwise, I have no opinion.
*runs*

26 Apr 2011

You can say what you like, but the TORIES want strike voting changed to suit them as well.
Its a plain and simple fact that less than 50% of people in England voted for the TORIES.
Yet they still another chance get to ruin this once fine country.

26 Apr 2011

Quote by bluexxx
I will vote no, just cos Nick Clegg is voting yes.
Otherwise, I have no opinion.
*runs*

I've got some good tablets for that...
bolt

26 Apr 2011

Quote by robbo-bi1
You can say what you like, but the TORIES want strike voting changed to suit them as well.
Its a plain and simple fact that less than 50% of people in England voted for the TORIES.
Yet they still another chance get to ruin this once fine country.

And you honestly believe that the AV system will change that?
It can't and it won't.
Until and unless the whole basis of the election of Members of Parliament to Westminster is fundamentally changed, tinkering with the system will only make matters worse. Electing MP's is as old as time itself (witness Saddam Hussain's comment "the Mother of all Parliaments) and dates back to a quaint time when the members of the Club were sent to Westminster to represent "their" - the locals - interest, not that of any political party. The "party" idea came to the fore when MP's with similar interests grouped together but it was always the Sovereign (and still is) who appoints the Prime Minister. The constitutional aspect of the Monarchy, power eroded away by popular demand over the years, has taken away many of the rights of the Sovereign but the lower echelons of the powerhouse (The Commons and The Lords - note the order in which these two institutions are now regarded) were not changed to reflect the significant change in Governance.
However, politics has (rightly) moved on in a modern world but Parliament and democracy has not. Tony Bliar (not my favourite person as most will know) tried to change things to a more "presidential" style of governance but it failed miserably because the establishment - currently the REAL power base in the UK (the Civil Service) wouldn't allow it and briefed significantly against him.
If you want to change the voting system, a Constitution (which doesn't yet exist in UK of course) needs to be devised first and foremost. But, who will champion such a cause? Asking Parliament to do it will be as equal to asking turkeys to vote for Christmas! Self interest will undoubtedly prevail. How about one of the disenfranchised Hereditary Peers with appropriate experience and popularity (do we know who they are) or an experienced and popular Royal (The Princess Royal perhaps)?.
France had Napoleon Bonaparte and de Gaul to do it for them. And now the President of France can only be elected with more than 50% of the actual vote in a run-off between the two most popular candidates in the first round (doesn't mean he remains popular though, of course!)
Only then will it be the time for change. Half considered and half baked liberalised ideals in the meantime will not fit the bill.
Vote NO.

26 Apr 2011

Quote by GnV
You can say what you like, but the TORIES want strike voting changed to suit them as well.
Its a plain and simple fact that less than 50% of people in England voted for the TORIES.
Yet they still another chance get to ruin this once fine country.

And you honestly believe that the AV system will change that?
It can't and it won't.
Until and unless the whole basis of the election of Members of Parliament to Westminster is fundamentally changed, tinkering with the system will only make matters worse. Electing MP's is as old as time itself (witness Saddam Hussain's comment "the Mother of all Parliaments) and dates back to a quaint time when the members of the Club were sent to Westminster to represent "their" - the locals - interest, not that of any political party. The "party" idea came to the fore when MP's with similar interests grouped together but it was always the Sovereign (and still is) who appoints the Prime Minister. The constitutional aspect of the Monarchy, power eroded away by popular demand over the years, has taken away many of the rights of the Sovereign but the lower echelons of the powerhouse (The Commons and The Lords - note the order in which these two institutions are now regarded) were not changed to reflect the significant change in Governance.
However, politics has (rightly) moved on in a modern world but Parliament and democracy has not. Tony Bliar (not my favourite person as most will know) tried to change things to a more "presidential" style of governance but it failed miserably because the establishment - currently the REAL power base in the UK (the Civil Service) wouldn't allow it and briefed significantly against him.
If you want to change the voting system, a Constitution (which doesn't yet exist in UK of course) needs to be devised first and foremost. But, who will champion such a cause? Asking Parliament to do it will be as equal to asking turkeys to vote for Christmas!
Only then will it be the time for change. Half considered and half baked liberalised ideals will not fit the bill.
Vote NO.
Sorry to upset you, but its a yes from him, and another yes from me.
Lets get out of the EU as well while we are at it, 100 years of helping out the frogs is more than enough, and £10 billion a year to help the Euro nations is just not sustainable.

26 Apr 2011

Quote by robbo-bi1
Sorry to upset you, but its a yes from him, and another yes from me.
Lets get out of the EU as well while we are at it, 100 years of helping out the frogs is more than enough, and £10 billion a year to help the Euro nations is just not sustainable.

The beauty of a free democracy is that people are entitled to express their own views and to articulate persuasion to influence others rather than resort to the bullet and the gun as is so much the case elsewhere in the world.
I'm not in the least upset. You read my argument and you have made an informed choice from what I can see. You are entitled to you own opinion.
The issue of Europe is an entirely different issue of course. Abandoning Europe is not now an option for the UK. Significant opportunities to control the UK's membership in Europe were frittered away by Tony Bliar and Gordon Brown thereafter.
Besides, why be so disparaging of the French? Haven't you been reading the papers or watching the news recently?
France is helping out the Brits currently - particularly on matters of defence. The Charles de Gaul aircraft carrier is now a shared resource since the UK pulled the plug (literally) on it's own fleet :grin:

26 Apr 2011

Maybe they feel guilty, after all we did help them out in their hour of need, on more than one occasion i not our defence they are helping out by the way.
Wonder how much they are charging us wink

YES to AV, put the "GREAT" back in Britain

26 Apr 2011

Quote by robbo-bi1
Maybe they feel guilty, after all we did help them out in their hour of need, on more than one occasion i not our defence they are helping out by the way.
Wonder how much they are charging us
YES to AV, put the "GREAT" back in Britain

Quite right, it's a NATO (or OTAN if you are French) backed alliance - achievable since President Sarkozy decided to rejoin after de Gaul said "Non" all those years ago and subsequent Presidents fudged the issue.
Charles de Gaul also said "Non" to the UK joining the (then) Common Market. Perhaps there is something in this "presidential" style that you seem so keen to rubbish.
And maybe, just maybe, the UK helping the French out in their "hour of need" on more than one occasion makes up for all the times the English invaded France, and pillaging the lands of their nearest neighbour. But of course, that was all so many years ago and the British are renown for their tolerance of the Europeans. Then again, the French gave as good as they got :wink:

26 Apr 2011

Don't get me going on the bloody French wink

Never forgiven them for helping out those mongrel yanks.
Just because we pushed them out of North America.:giveup:

26 Apr 2011

Quote by robbo-bi1
Maybe they feel guilty, after all we did help them out in their hour of need, on more than one occasion i not our defence they are helping out by the way.
Wonder how much they are charging us
YES to AV, put the "GREAT" back in Britain

i didn`t have you down as a Thatcherite bolt

Yes or no to the alternative vote?