Women’s March London: Thousands Take To The Streets In Startling Show Of Strength

Thousands of people gathered in central London on Saturday for the capital’s Women’s March.

Millions of people are expected to attend marches across the world to support womens’ rights - in a show of force on the first full day of Donald Trump’s presidency.


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/women-s-march-london-pictures-video_uk_588361f0e4b0b8867de7ee81?ai38lqo21qq6w29&utm_hp_ref=uk


Video's on link

Yawn...

Tommy Monk wrote:Yawn...

Why do you constantly attempt to derail and spoil threads?

If you have nothing constructive to say, why say anything at all?

This is boring... the feminazis need to start to realise that firstly, they don't live in America and trump is not their president... secondly, trump was democratically elected by the people of America and nobody cares for their whining bullshit!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:This is boring... the feminazis need to start to realise that firstly, they don't live in America and trump is not their president... secondly, trump was democratically elected by the people of America and nobody cares for their whining bullshit!!!

You do realise this is a global march, with about 600 going on around the world.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2017/01/21/anti-trump-women-s-marches-kick-off.html?via=desktop&source=copyurl


You do not have to live in the US, to have a spiral effect to other nations, if America goes down the pan economically. It then effects globally. 

More importantly they are protesting against his sexism, where its evident many people care

So you think its wrong to protest against a sexist who is now the leader of the most powerful nation in the world, now do you Tommy?

Tommy Monk wrote:Yawn...

Sounds like nap time for Tommy the Toddler!

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Yawn...

Sounds like nap time for Tommy the Toddler!

"Tommy gave a big yawn, and settled down to sleep. And when Tommy goes to sleep, all his friends go to sleep too. The Far Right are ornaments on his teeny tiny Organ, Farage and Marine Le Pen are just dolls. And President Trump is just a carved wooden book-end in the shape of a woodpecker. Even Tommy himself, once he is asleep, is just an old, saggy cloth cat - baggy and a bit loose at the seams. But Newsfix loved him."

Well all the protesting won't change anything so what a waste of time . And what's it to do with them anyway he isn't their President .

Shouldn't they be protesting against the people who voted for him? It's not his fault he won.

Raggamuffin wrote:Shouldn't they be protesting against the people who voted for him? It's not his fault he won.

They are protesting against him for his views

Why protest against the people that voted for him, people can do make some poor choices sometimes

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Shouldn't they be protesting against the people who voted for him? It's not his fault he won.

They are protesting against him for his views

Why protest against the people that voted for him, people can do make some poor choices sometimes

They voted for him on the basis of those views, so it was their fault really.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


They are protesting against him for his views

Why protest against the people that voted for him, people can do make some poor choices sometimes

They voted for him on the basis of those views, so it was their fault really.

They voted for him based on a number of reasons, many of which were claims, he has already backtracked on.

So where some have voted for him because of fears of terrorism, does not mean they share his sexist views for example. The fear of terrorism is more persuasive than his sexist stance

Again he is the one in power and what purpose would there be in protesting voters?
The message is protesting against the elected leader which is showing anyway that they are protesting that people voted for him. He is where the buck stops as he is now in power.

So yes they are at fault but then people are gullible to fake news, fear, and being naive to poor claims made, that will never happen. Fear was the biggest aspect of trumps campaign and he used it effectively and many people bought it

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:Well all the protesting won't change anything so what a waste of time . And what's it to do with them anyway he isn't their President .

Do you actually believe that a protest never changed anything, VOD?

Protests should not encourage the smashing of windows and the burning of cars or rioting against the Police, or do you advocate that to get you own way?

nicko wrote:Protests should not encourage the smashing of windows and the burning of cars or rioting against the Police, or do you advocate that to get you own way?

Protests don't encourage violence Nicko, people driven by hate or criminals do.
You cannot cast the majority of peaceful protesters based on the criminal element out to cause anarchy

Tommy Monk wrote:Yawn...

Not too bored of the topic to type "yawn" though.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:Well all the protesting won't change anything so what a waste of time . And what's it to do with them anyway he isn't their President .

Do you actually believe that a protest never changed anything, VOD?

Al the protesting here in the uk hasn't changed the leave vote. I find it immature that people can't accept a democratic vote and wish to change it because their side didn't win . I just think people need to accept it and be grown up and pull together to make the most of what has happened . Protesting causes a lot of animosity and division .

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Do you actually believe that a protest never changed anything, VOD?

Al the protesting here in the uk hasn't changed the leave vote. I find it immature that people can't accept a democratic vote and wish to change it because their side didn't win . I just think people need to accept it and be grown up and pull together to make the most of what has happened . Protesting causes a lot of animosity and division .

But Protesting can help change what was once a majority views
Nothing is ever set in stone
Are you telling me that if they voted in Sharia law with an Islamic Governement. In the UK, you would not protest, but respect democracy as you say?

Protesting is not disrupting democracy, its being vocal to show how much it means to people. That they are willing to go out and show why they feel its wrong. It can garner support and change what was once seen a poor decision. People were led by their emotions on Brexit and not reason. I respect the decision, but it does not mean people cannot look to change the perceptions of people once a vote has happened

Sometimes a democratic decision can allow someone to rule that then creates carnage and mass death
One example of this, was Hitler
Need I say anymore?

If Le Pen gets voted in i am guessing we will be seeing the same immature behaviour from the losers .

Thorin wrote:

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:

Al the protesting here in the uk hasn't changed the leave vote. I find it immature that people can't accept a democratic vote and wish to change it because their side didn't win . I just think people need to accept it and be grown up and pull together to make the most of what has happened . Protesting causes a lot of animosity and division .

But Protesting can help change what was once a majority views
Nothing is ever set in stone
Are you telling me that if they voted in Sharia law with an Islamic Governement. In the UK, you would not protest, but respect democracy as you say?

Protesting is not disrupting democracy, its being vocal to show how much it means to people. That they are willing to go out and show why they feel its wrong. It can garner support and change what was once seen a poor decision. People were led by their emotions on Brexit and not reason. I respect the decision, but it does not mean people cannot look to change the perceptions of people once a vote has happened

Sometimes a democratic decision can allow someone to rule that then creates carnage and mass death
One example of this, was Hitler
Need I say anymore?

Why would sharia law be voted in we are not an islamic country .

Nothing changed my perception by the protests - in fact it made realise i voted the right way and everyone i speak to say they would vote to leave again . It's just bad losers behaving badly .

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:If Le Pen gets voted in i am guessing we will be seeing the same immature behaviour from the losers .

Do you think it was immature to stand up to Hitler when he was voted in Democratically?
Just because at a time when people are driven by emotional fear and vote for something. Does not mean that majority vote was the right decision, does it?

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:

Thorin wrote:

But Protesting can help change what was once a majority views
Nothing is ever set in stone
Are you telling me that if they voted in Sharia law with an Islamic Governement. In the UK, you would not protest, but respect democracy as you say?

Protesting is not disrupting democracy, its being vocal to show how much it means to people. That they are willing to go out and show why they feel its wrong. It can garner support and change what was once seen a poor decision. People were led by their emotions on Brexit and not reason. I respect the decision, but it does not mean people cannot look to change the perceptions of people once a vote has happened

Sometimes a democratic decision can allow someone to rule that then creates carnage and mass death
One example of this, was Hitler
Need I say anymore?

Why would sharia law be voted in we are not an islamic country .

What if hypothetically it did become the majority view?
Would you accept it or protest it?

Thorin wrote:

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:If Le Pen gets voted in i am guessing we will be seeing the same immature behaviour from the losers .

Do you think it was immature to stand up to Hitler when he was voted in Democratically?
Just because at a time when people are driven by emotional fear and vote for something. Does not mean that majority vote was the right decision, does it?

I wasn't around when Hitler was so i don't know I'm on about here and now .

If my party doesn't win the next election i will accept it and move on .

Thorin wrote:

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:

Why would sharia law be voted in we are not an islamic country .

What if hypothetically it did become the majority view?
Would you accept it or protest it?

It won't so no need to even think about it lol

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:Well all the protesting won't change anything so what a waste of time . And what's it to do with them anyway he isn't their President .

Do you actually believe that a protest never changed anything, VOD?

Al the protesting here in the uk hasn't changed the leave vote. I find it immature that people can't accept a democratic vote and wish to change it because their side didn't win . I just think people need to accept it and be grown up and pull together to make the most of what has happened . Protesting causes a lot of animosity and division .

Most people now support Remain, so you tell me if those protests did nothing.

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:

Thorin wrote:


What if hypothetically it did become the majority view?
Would you accept it or protest it?

It won't so no need to even think about it lol

That is avoiding the question dibs
Hypothetically allows you to place yourself into uncomfortable positions, one of which I have had placed onto me I did not like.
The reality is you would protest if such a thing happened, based on your views of Islam
Guess what, I would protest too, because I would not want to be ruled by an religious mythical absolute ideology

Ben Reilly wrote:

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:

Al the protesting here in the uk hasn't changed the leave vote. I find it immature that people can't accept a democratic vote and wish to change it because their side didn't win . I just think people need to accept it and be grown up and pull together to make the most of what has happened . Protesting causes a lot of animosity and division .

Most people now support Remain, so you tell me if those protests did nothing.

Absolutely right Ben

In total 46.5 million had the right to vote in the Brexit referendum.


Of those 33.5 million – or 72% – voted.


Compared to general elections it was an exceptional turnout, yet still, 12.9 million people did not vote.
Since the referendum there have been 13 polls, 11 of which show preferences of both voters and non-voters. Among the non-voters there is a continuing average of about 13.8% majority for Remain. Click here to view poll data.

What this means is clear – the UK electorate as a whole does not want Brexit.
The maths is relatively simple. If, as the polls predict, nearly 14% more abstainers want Remain rather than Leave that amounts to 14% of 12.9 million, which is nearly 1.8 million. That is greater than the 1.3 million Leave majority at the referendum.


For about three weeks after June 23 referendum there was a big reversal of the vote in the polls. All of the numbers indicated the UK did not expect the Leave majority of 3.8%.


Leavers changed their minds and the polls reversed that majority in favour of Remain. It was a major reversal into more than double percentage figures. Latterly the significant factor in the polls, for Remain, is the preferences of the non-voter.


Some say, non-voters have forfeited their right to have their views considered. Others that the losers in the referendum since they have lost, should accept the position.


However if the country, both then and now, actually does not want Brexit, what is going on?


The non-voters are 13.8% biased towards staying in the EU. Two possible scenarios, amongst many, are complacency of a Remain victory and the organisational skills of our young people.


The pre-referendum polls said Remain would win. A Remain supporter that needed to leave work early to vote, for example, may not have bothered to rush because Remain is going to win anyway – the polls said so. If you were a Leave voter, you know your vote may actually be needed. So the early journey home is worth it. Such behaviour is well documented in political research. It is why some countries ban polls in the final week of a campaign.


Secondly most 18-24s did not vote but those who did were 75% for Remain. Approximately 1.5 million University students register to vote in their university town but June 23rd would have been, for most, after term had ended. How many of them would have realised early enough to plan a postal vote into their lives? Recognising and planning postal votes might not have been at the top of their agenda.


As of October, about 10% of both Leave and Remain voters have either swapped their preference (5%) or now respond that they do not know what to think (the other 5%). These balance each other, so it is the non-voters who create the electoral majority in the polls for Remain.


Should there ever be another referendum, no-shows last time might be no-shows again, but at least in any second vote the Remainers know they would be on a back foot.


And demographics also change the scene. There are 750,000 new 18 year old voters each year and a balancing number of deaths, the vast majority in the 65+ range. The 18-24s voted 75% in favour of Remain, the 65+ group voted 35% for Remain. The 40% difference means that year-on-year, assuming the referendum voters stick with their choice, there will be 300,000 added to the Remain camp. The calculation is complex because the different groups had different turnouts but a Financial Times model has the Remain camp winning a referendum vote (ignoring all the non-voters) by the end of 2021.


Actually, the tipping point is likely to be sooner than that.


On October 7 the government announced it would implement a manifesto promise to give UK expats who had been outside of the UK for 15 years or more, the opportunity to vote. From a Remain point of view it might have been wise to do that before the referendum. More recent UK expats already had the vote. Estimates vary between one million and five million long-term-resident expats. It is likely that the overwhelming majority of these, like the more recent expat community, would vote Remain.


Two other groups were excluded from voting, both groups requesting voting rights but were denied them. According to the National Union of Students 75% of 16-18s wanted a vote. They had a vote in the Scottish Independence Referendum and this one was just as important. If they voted as the 18-24s, 1.5 million of them would have been 75% for Remain.


And EU residents of the UK, or to be accurate, non-UK, non-Eire EU residents of the UK. In total 2.25 million EU residents in the UK were not allowed to vote. These are probably the group whose lives are most likely to be dramatically affected by Brexit. Their argument is that good democracy is about those who are likely to be affected most having a vote. Needless to say they would most likely have voted to Remain.


So, even if we consider the whole UK population there are two big groups that add substantial numbers to the Remain majority from the electorate. The UK does not want Brexit.


Ultimately it is up to government to decide whether the will of the UK people and/or the will of the UK electorate (voting and non-voting) has any value after a referendum. If it does have value then, at some point in the future the people should have the opportunity to demonstrate what seems to be their wish to Remain. If all UK residents and expats are included, the polls suggest the vote would be much more conclusive


http://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/we_want_to_remain_say_11_out_of_13_polls_since_the_brexit_vote_1_4768596
.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:

Al the protesting here in the uk hasn't changed the leave vote. I find it immature that people can't accept a democratic vote and wish to change it because their side didn't win . I just think people need to accept it and be grown up and pull together to make the most of what has happened . Protesting causes a lot of animosity and division .

Most people now support Remain, so you tell me if those protests did nothing.

Absolute rubbish!!!

The pre-referendum polls said Remain would win. A Remain supporter that needed to leave work early to vote, for example, may not have bothered to rush because Remain is going to win anyway – the polls said so. If you were a Leave voter, you know your vote may actually be needed. So the early journey home is worth it. Such behaviour is well documented in political research. It is why some countries ban polls in the final week of a campaign.

If someone was determined to stay in the EU they should have made the effort and voted. You could vote up to 10pm, so unless they had a four-hour commute, they could have voted with time to spare and without leaving work early.

Raggamuffin wrote:

The pre-referendum polls said Remain would win. A Remain supporter that needed to leave work early to vote, for example, may not have bothered to rush because Remain is going to win anyway – the polls said so. If you were a Leave voter, you know your vote may actually be needed. So the early journey home is worth it. Such behaviour is well documented in political research. It is why some countries ban polls in the final week of a campaign.

If someone was determined to stay in the EU they should have made the effort and voted. You could vote up to 10pm, so unless they had a four-hour commute, they could have voted with time to spare and without leaving work early.

Nothing is set in stone. Why do people think that once one vote has happened, that it can not happen again?
We already have elections every 4-5 years and many Scots have not accepted the Referendum vote on Scottish independence and are looking to have another vote soon

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

If someone was determined to stay in the EU they should have made the effort and voted. You could vote up to 10pm, so unless they had a four-hour commute, they could have voted with time to spare and without leaving work early.

Nothing is set in stone. Why do people think that once one vote has happened, that it can not happen again?
We already have elections every 4-5 years and many Scots have not accepted the Referendum vote on Scottish independence and are looking to have another vote soon

I didn't say there couldn't be another vote, I mean that people can't use silly excuses for not voting and then complain about the result.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Nothing is set in stone. Why do people think that once one vote has happened, that it can not happen again?
We already have elections every 4-5 years and many Scots have not accepted the Referendum vote on Scottish independence and are looking to have another vote soon

I didn't say there couldn't be another vote, I mean that people can't use silly excuses for not voting and then complain about the result.

They can if work, traffic denied them being able to get their own time to vote

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I didn't say there couldn't be another vote, I mean that people can't use silly excuses for not voting and then complain about the result.

They can if work, traffic denied them being able to get their own time to vote

That could apply to those who wanted to vote to leave as well.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

They can if work, traffic denied them being able to get their own time to vote

That could apply to those who wanted to vote to leave as well.

Of course it can, so that is not a silly excuse about not being able to vote then, is it?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

That could apply to those who wanted to vote to leave as well.

Of course it can, so that is not a silly excuse about not being able to vote then, is it?

It's a silly excuse made by the person who wrote the article. It would be interesting to know how many people were stuck in traffic so long that they were too late to vote. I suspect it would be a very low number. Basically, he's saying that they couldn't be bothered because they thought the remainers would win anyway.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Of course it can, so that is not a silly excuse about not being able to vote then, is it?

It's a silly excuse made by the person who wrote the article. It would be interesting to know how many people were stuck in traffic so long that they were too late to vote. I suspect it would be a very low number. Basically, he's saying that they couldn't be bothered because they thought the remainers would win anyway.

As seen its not a silly excuse, as people cannot just leave work, they have work commitments
Such votes should be held when he majority of people are not working, like on a weekend
He said some people were openly confident and did not bother to vote
So if there was a second vote, would their vote then discount rags?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's a silly excuse made by the person who wrote the article. It would be interesting to know how many people were stuck in traffic so long that they were too late to vote. I suspect it would be a very low number. Basically, he's saying that they couldn't be bothered because they thought the remainers would win anyway.

As seen its not a silly excuse, as people cannot just leave work, they have work commitments
Such votes should be held when he majority of people are not working, like on a weekend
He said some people were openly confident and did not bother to vote
So if there was a second vote, would their vote then discount rags?

They suddenly had work commitments that day? Leave it out. If it was that important to them, they should have arranged a proxy vote.

If the vote had taken place at the weekend, you'd still have some people complaining that had have better things to do - like go to the supermarket or go to the seaside.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

As seen its not a silly excuse, as people cannot just leave work, they have work commitments
Such votes should be held when he majority of people are not working, like on a weekend
He said some people were openly confident and did not bother to vote
So if there was a second vote, would their vote then discount rags?

They suddenly had work commitments that day? Leave it out. If it was that important to them, they should have arranged a proxy vote.

If the vote had taken place at the weekend, you'd still have some people complaining that had have better things to do - like go to the supermarket or go to the seaside.

No, most people had work commitments that day, so no I will not leave it out. Why should they arrange something when they believed they would be able to get their on time to vote, but then were delayed?

Then referendums should be held over 3 days, to allow time for everyone to vote

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

They suddenly had work commitments that day? Leave it out. If it was that important to them, they should have arranged a proxy vote.

If the vote had taken place at the weekend, you'd still have some people complaining that had have better things to do - like go to the supermarket or go to the seaside.

No, most people had work commitments that day, so no I will not leave it out. Why should they arrange something when they believed they would be able to get their on time to vote, but then were delayed?

Then referendums should be held over 3 days, to allow time for everyone to vote

Again, "work commitments" could apply to leavers too, so the argument is invalid. Emergency proxy voting was available.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

No, most people had work commitments that day, so no I will not leave it out. Why should they arrange something when they believed they would be able to get their on time to vote, but then were delayed?

Then referendums should be held over 3 days, to allow time for everyone to vote

Again, "work commitments" could apply to leavers too, so the argument is invalid. Emergency proxy voting was available.

Again I am not disputing it can apply to leavers, which is taken into account in the article in regards to those who did not vote, if you read again

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Again, "work commitments" could apply to leavers too, so the argument is invalid. Emergency proxy voting was available.

Again I am not disputing it can apply to leavers, which is taken into account in the article in regards to those who did not vote, if you read again

No it's not. It just says that leavers would leave work early to vote. If they had work commitments too, they couldn't leave any earlier than the remainers who also had work commitments.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Again I am not disputing it can apply to leavers, which is taken into account in the article in regards to those who did not vote, if you read again

No it's not. It just says that leavers would leave work early to vote. If they had work commitments too, they couldn't leave any earlier than the remainers who also had work commitments.

Yes it is, because its showing the views of those who did not vote, which you are not taking into account who would vote given the chance.

The non-voters are 13.8% biased towards staying in the EU.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No it's not. It just says that leavers would leave work early to vote. If they had work commitments too, they couldn't leave any earlier than the remainers who also had work commitments.

Yes it is, because its showing the views of those who did not vote, which you are not taking into account who would vote given the chance.

The non-voters are 13.8% biased towards staying in the EU.

But if a remainer had work commitments and couldn't vote, neither could a leave voter who also had work commitments, so they cancel each other out, unless he wants to claim that remainers are more likely to have had work commitments such that they couldn't get to vote by 10pm.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Yes it is, because its showing the views of those who did not vote, which you are not taking into account who would vote given the chance.

The non-voters are 13.8% biased towards staying in the EU.

But if a remainer had work commitments and couldn't vote, neither could a leave voter who also had work commitments, so they cancel each other out, unless he wants to claim that remainers are more likely to have had work commitments such that they couldn't get to vote by 10pm.

They don't cancel each other out, as The non-voters are 13.8% biased towards staying in the EU.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

But if a remainer had work commitments and couldn't vote, neither could a leave voter who also had work commitments, so they cancel each other out, unless he wants to claim that remainers are more likely to have had work commitments such that they couldn't get to vote by 10pm.

They don't cancel each other out, as The non-voters are 13.8% biased towards staying in the EU.

They do cancel each other out. Are you claiming that remainers are more likely to have had work commitments than leavers on that day?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Most people now support Remain, so you tell me if those protests did nothing.

Absolute rubbish!!!

Every person I speak to and I am speaking to the public everyday with my job would vote to leave again and many would vote leave who voted remain .

It really doesn't matter though because its done and protesting did nothing to change the result .

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


They don't cancel each other out, as The non-voters are 13.8% biased towards staying in the EU.

They do cancel each other out. Are you claiming that remainers are more likely to have had work commitments than leavers on that day?

They do not cancel each other out, as more non-voters would vote to remain
What do you fail to grasp about?
He has given you stats on the non-voters and The non-voters are 13.8% biased towards staying in the EU.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

They do cancel each other out. Are you claiming that remainers are more likely to have had work commitments than leavers on that day?

They do not cancel each other out, as more non-voters would vote to remain
What do you fail to grasp about?
He has given you stats on the non-voters and The non-voters are 13.8% biased towards staying in the EU.

What you are failing to grasp is that if a remainer can't get home in time, then neither can a leaver. Now if you wanted to claim the remainers are more likely to be in that position, that would be an interesting debate. For example, it's been said that a lot of older people voted to leave - retired people perhaps who only had to stroll down the voting booth when they wanted? Perhaps it's people who have the kind of job where they always leave work on time who voted to leave?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


They do not cancel each other out, as more non-voters would vote to remain
What do you fail to grasp about?
He has given you stats on the non-voters and The non-voters are 13.8% biased towards staying in the EU.

What you are failing to grasp is that if a remainer can't get home in time, then neither can a leaver. Now if you wanted to claim the remainers are more likely to be in that position, that would be an interesting debate. For example, it's been said that a lot of older people voted to leave - retired people perhaps who only had to stroll down the voting booth when they wanted? Perhaps it's people who have the kind of job where they always leave work on time who voted to leave?

Again I have not discounted that leave voters would experience the same and would be classified with the no vote group. At no point have I discounted this and agree d with you. What you cannot do is work out simple maths. Of the non-voters, The non-voters are 13.8% biased towards staying in the EU. That means if all the non-voters voted together with the rest, remain would be the majority.
Has this sunk in yet?
Or do you need me to dumb it down further for you?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

What you are failing to grasp is that if a remainer can't get home in time, then neither can a leaver. Now if you wanted to claim the remainers are more likely to be in that position, that would be an interesting debate. For example, it's been said that a lot of older people voted to leave - retired people perhaps who only had to stroll down the voting booth when they wanted? Perhaps it's people who have the kind of job where they always leave work on time who voted to leave?

Again I have not discounted that leave voters would experience the same and would be classified with the no vote group. At no point have I discounted this and agree d with you. What you cannot do is work out simple maths. Of the non-voters, The non-voters are 13.8% biased towards staying in the EU. That means if all the non-voters voted together with the rest, leave would be the majority.
Has this sunk in yet?
Or do you need me to dumb it down further for you?

There's no need to be rude. We haven't finished discussing the issue I raised yet - those who allegedly wanted to vote to remain but didn't bother because they thought it was a done deal. Now the article suggests that some of them didn't bother because they would need to leave work early to get home by 10pm. For a start, even if they leave work at 6pm, how likely is it that it would take them four hours to get home? Secondly, the same thing applies to leavers who really wanted to make the effort. How many of them would think - oooh, it might take me several hours to get home so I'd best leave at 4pm?