Ukip must be treated as a major party and given more airtime in run-up to Euro elections, Ofcom orders TV channels

First topic message reminder :

ITV has been ordered to treat Ukip as a ‘major party’ in the run-up to the European Parliament elections in May.

In a landmark ruling, broadcasting regulator Ofcom last night said the anti-EU party’s success in previous Euro elections meant it should be put on a par with the other main parties.

ITV and Channel 5, which are regulated by Ofcom, were ordered to grant Ukip ‘major party status’ in the run-up to May’s elections, guaranteeing it increased coverage.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2572591/Treat-Ukip-major-party-Ofcom-orders-TV-channels-Regulator-says-success-previous-Euro-elections-Labour-Tories-Lib-Dems.html

 ::%:: 

victorismyhero wrote:yeah??? really????

RUBBISH....only jobs being "made" at the moment are non-jobs.....agency stuff, zero hours contracts...multi share jobs...Little, if anything of substance...

what economic activity there is is based on yet another housing and credit bubble.

In the mean time, we have tens/hundreds of thousands being stigmatised, and abused in the press, Being abused by the very system that is supposed to help, and having the general (idiot) public turned against them....

70,000 deprived of any income WRONGLY...I do hope you are proud, but then you would cheer for THAT number to be made jobless????

How many have DIED as a DIRECT result of these policies...ONE is ONE TOO MANY....

Blood on their hands, and on the hands of their supporters.....

Go after those who are the REAL threat, the tax fraudsters....but no...they are your lords and masters and are too scary for you.....

is the economy growing, yes or know?



Yes, thus credible economic policy


Sorry guilt arguments are bullshit Victor and make people easily led to media hype


So take your pipe dream stories and go seek a hanky, I find most of the claims being made absurd, as why is it we need more food banks for example when we have far more people in work than under labour in the last years, less people needed JSA, people on the lowest incomes paying less tax, that people are now better off that they need to?
Its bullshit, what is a factor is that it was always needed, the fact is mistakes happen under any government but you use the old commie tried trick of guilt, sorry it does not buy

Are you banking this on people missing out on a weeks pay, get fucking real and enter the real world

victorismyhero wrote:yeah??? really????

RUBBISH....only jobs being "made" at the moment are non-jobs.....agency stuff, zero hours contracts...multi share jobs...Little, if anything of substance...

what economic activity there is is based on yet another housing and credit bubble.

In the mean time, we have tens/hundreds of thousands being stigmatised, and abused in the press, Being abused by the very system that is supposed to help, and having the general (idiot) public turned against them....

70,000 deprived of any income WRONGLY...I do hope you are proud, but then you would cheer for THAT number to be made jobless????

How many have DIED as a DIRECT result of these policies...ONE is ONE TOO MANY....

Blood on their hands, and on the hands of their supporters.....

Go after those who are the REAL threat, the tax fraudsters....but no...they are your lords and masters and are too scary for you.....

Deny all you like things are getting better.

can we stop talking about ukip please my uncle caught a disease of a politician and it upsets me..

heavenly father wrote:can we stop talking about ukip please my uncle caught a disease of a politician and it upsets me..

HF doing what he does best being vile, mocking the view of people being upset at lost ones


So please continue to show how utterly vile you are

Why Chemotherapy
Never Works, and What Does

Nurse adjusts IV flow of chemotherapy drip.
Why chemotherapy never works.

Do you have a cancer diagnosis? Then you're most likely to hear your recommended treatment is one of the following three: surgery, radiation or chemotherapy.

Mainstream Western medicine routinely offers these 3 standard therapies, or some variation of them.

The most dreaded of these is chemotherapy because of its terrible side-effects. They can be acute, chronic, permanent, or fatal.

Short-term chemotherapy side-effects often cause much:

inconvenience
discomfort
pain
loss of hair
diarrhea
constipation
loss of appetite
dangerous weight loss
blisters
burning
and, death.
Long-term chemotherapy side-effects can include

loss of hearing
loss of memory
loss of sexual drive
increase in blood fungus
irreversible damage to your liver
damage your kidneys
causing a new cancer
Death. It has a 98% chance of killing you in 5-years, or allowing the cancer to kill you. (Many die during infusion or during the first 3 to 6 months.)
Patient in hospital bed connected to chemotherapy IV drip.
Yet, many oncologists are quick to recommend chemotherapy for almost any type of cancer - even though it's been shown NOT to work in over 98% of the cases!

Why are oncologists so quick to recommend chemotherapy?

Can you say "Money"? Oncologist bring in approximately 75% to 80% of their income from prescribing Chemotherapy. Therefore, of course they're going to prescribe chemotherapy whenever they can.

Oncologists see cancer patients as a revenue source. And, (in a recent report) when asked if they themselves would take this treatment if they had a cancer diagnoses, a resounding majority of oncologists said, "Absolutely Not"!

If You've Been Prescribed Chemotherapy, Ask For a Chemosensitivity Test.

Like they do at Mexican Cancer Clinics . . .

Why? Because a chemosensitivity test reveals which of approximately 29-chemicals in the cocktail of chemicals oncology intends to give you, will actually help kill your cancer, and which one/s of the chemicals may actually kill you instead of killing the cancer.

Does this sound like a test you would like to have, before under-going chemotherapy, rather than willingly allowing your oncologist to play Russian Roulette with your life, and allowing oncology to prescribe you a cocktail of chemicals, one which may actually kill you?

If so, you should demand a chemosensitivity test. And if your oncologist has never heard of a chemosensitivity test, I highly recommend you get up out of your chair immediately and leave the office, and head straight for the clinic in Mexico that I went to. Because, the clinic in Mexico does administer a chemosensitivity test before prescribing chemotherapy. (Which they only administer a tablespoon full instead of 2-liters at a time. However, I hope you don't take the stuff at all.)

Now that you know, you can make an informed decision about whether to take chemotherapy or not, and then, take appropriate action from an informed point of view.

How does Chemotherapy work?

Chemotherapy damages the DNA of rapidly dividing cells. Cancer cells are rapidly dividing, so that's a good thing, right? Well, yes; however, your immune system cells are also rapidly dividing. In fact, your immune system cells are the most rapidly dividing cells in your body.

At this point, I hope you start to become just a little concerned that Oncology is attacking your immune system along with the cancer.

Chemotherapy and Blood Cancer

Man pale white after chemotherapy.
Blood cancers such as lymphoma and leukemia travel throughout the body.

The human body has about 600 lymph nodes.

They make up part of our immune system. Lymphoma is cancer of the lymph nodes and lymph system; therefore, chemotherapy is Oncology's standard treatment for cancer in the lymph nodes because chemotherapy is a "systemic treatment" meaning whole body treatment.

Why is chemotherapy given before breast surgery? After mammograms detect cancer, chemotherapy is administered as standard treatment. Quite often it is administered before surgery to shrink the tumor/s.

Likewise, why is chemotherapy given for oral cancer? This practice is on the rise in the United States. Typically surgery and radiation have been the standard, but in order to decrease hospital stays to satisfy insurance companies, outpatient radiation treatments has grown in popularity for oral cancer. I do imagine this made oncology very happy.

Question: What is the first thing Oncology checks before giving the next dose of chemo?

Female technician checks microscope for chemo effects on blood.
The answer why is: Your white blood cells - that is, your immune cells. Why do Oncologists check white blood cell count? To insure the count is reduced.

Because if your immune system cell count is reduced, they also know they are reducing the speed the cancer cells are multiplying.

Does Chemo Kill All The Cancer?

If you were to ask an oncologist (chemo doctor) if chemo could ever possibly kill all of the cancer cells, the honest answer would be a resounding, "Never!"

Chemotherapy doesn't work that way.

At its very best, chemo might kill 60%, 70%, maybe even 80% of the cancer cells, but there will always be some remaining.

That would make you think, "If the chemo is not going to kill all the cancer cells, and if I'm going to live, what's going to kill the rest of the cancer cells, and why don't oncologists tell me this?"

The fact is, if your immune system cannot step up and kill the last 20% or 30% of the cancer cells, you will die from that remaining cancer. Herein lies the irony. Chemotherapy destroys the ONLY thing that can possibly save your life - that is, your immune system.

Why Would Oncology Knowingly Suppress Your Immune System?

Oncology surpresses your immune system because protocol is more important than the patient. And, unless your immune system is in the best working order to do battle with cancer, cancer will always win.

Help For Your Immune System

Since chemotherapy destroys the immune system -- what is the healing method that strengthens and turns it on so that you can be healed and restored to health?

Peggy Sue Roberts in sauna tent which is a natural, alternative treatment at Mexican cancer clinics.
The Mexican Cancer Clinic I went to in early 2007 concentrates on rebuilding ans supporting your immune system. They use natural, non-invasive, non-painful treatments to awaken your immune system and get it working again.

At home you can use "Transfer Factor" but it is far better to go to the clinic.

Do you want to be cancer-free by next month? Complete the form at the bottom of this page and go to the clinic in Mexico that I went to.

After you have the contact information in hand: call the doctor to determine if you're a good candidate for natural alternative cancer treatments. If so, get yourself to the clinic in Tijuana, Mexico as soon as possible!



Alternative Cancer Treatments at a Natural, Cancer Treatment Clinic In Mexico That Works Fast To Kill Cancer and Build Up Your Immune System:

Peggy Sue Roberts receives Rife Technology which is a natural, alternative treatment at Mexican cancer clinic.
My Name is Peggy Sue Roberts and the author of this website.

In 2007 I was diagnosed with stage-4 cancer and told I had as short as 3-months to live. Oncology almost killed me with chemo, and then sent me home to die.

I researched and found a wonderful clinic in Mexico which was recommended in one of Kevin Trudeau’s books concerning “Natural Cures”. After 2-weeks of non-painful, natural treatments, I walked out of the clinic clear of cancer and ready to live again.

I highly recommend everyone with any type or stage cancer go to the Mexican cancer clinic that I went to.

Someone is going the right way to get banned, I wonder if will take heed and get back to debating as before

Why Chemotherapy
Never Works, and What Does

Nurse adjusts IV flow of chemotherapy drip.
Why chemotherapy never works.

Do you have a cancer diagnosis? Then you're most likely to hear your recommended treatment is one of the following three: surgery, radiation or chemotherapy.

Mainstream Western medicine routinely offers these 3 standard therapies, or some variation of them.

The most dreaded of these is chemotherapy because of its terrible side-effects. They can be acute, chronic, permanent, or fatal.

Short-term chemotherapy side-effects often cause much:

inconvenience
discomfort
pain
loss of hair
diarrhea
constipation
loss of appetite
dangerous weight loss
blisters
burning
and, death.
Long-term chemotherapy side-effects can include

loss of hearing
loss of memory
loss of sexual drive
increase in blood fungus
irreversible damage to your liver
damage your kidneys
causing a new cancer
Death. It has a 98% chance of killing you in 5-years, or allowing the cancer to kill you. (Many die during infusion or during the first 3 to 6 months.)
Patient in hospital bed connected to chemotherapy IV drip.
Yet, many oncologists are quick to recommend chemotherapy for almost any type of cancer - even though it's been shown NOT to work in over 98% of the cases!

Why are oncologists so quick to recommend chemotherapy?

Can you say "Money"? Oncologist bring in approximately 75% to 80% of their income from prescribing Chemotherapy. Therefore, of course they're going to prescribe chemotherapy whenever they can.

Oncologists see cancer patients as a revenue source. And, (in a recent report) when asked if they themselves would take this treatment if they had a cancer diagnoses, a resounding majority of oncologists said, "Absolutely Not"!

If You've Been Prescribed Chemotherapy, Ask For a Chemosensitivity Test.

Like they do at Mexican Cancer Clinics . . .

Why? Because a chemosensitivity test reveals which of approximately 29-chemicals in the cocktail of chemicals oncology intends to give you, will actually help kill your cancer, and which one/s of the chemicals may actually kill you instead of killing the cancer.

Does this sound like a test you would like to have, before under-going chemotherapy, rather than willingly allowing your oncologist to play Russian Roulette with your life, and allowing oncology to prescribe you a cocktail of chemicals, one which may actually kill you?

If so, you should demand a chemosensitivity test. And if your oncologist has never heard of a chemosensitivity test, I highly recommend you get up out of your chair immediately and leave the office, and head straight for the clinic in Mexico that I went to. Because, the clinic in Mexico does administer a chemosensitivity test before prescribing chemotherapy. (Which they only administer a tablespoon full instead of 2-liters at a time. However, I hope you don't take the stuff at all.)

Now that you know, you can make an informed decision about whether to take chemotherapy or not, and then, take appropriate action from an informed point of view.

How does Chemotherapy work?

Chemotherapy damages the DNA of rapidly dividing cells. Cancer cells are rapidly dividing, so that's a good thing, right? Well, yes; however, your immune system cells are also rapidly dividing. In fact, your immune system cells are the most rapidly dividing cells in your body.

At this point, I hope you start to become just a little concerned that Oncology is attacking your immune system along with the cancer.

Chemotherapy and Blood Cancer

Man pale white after chemotherapy.
Blood cancers such as lymphoma and leukemia travel throughout the body.

The human body has about 600 lymph nodes.

They make up part of our immune system. Lymphoma is cancer of the lymph nodes and lymph system; therefore, chemotherapy is Oncology's standard treatment for cancer in the lymph nodes because chemotherapy is a "systemic treatment" meaning whole body treatment.

Why is chemotherapy given before breast surgery? After mammograms detect cancer, chemotherapy is administered as standard treatment. Quite often it is administered before surgery to shrink the tumor/s.

Likewise, why is chemotherapy given for oral cancer? This practice is on the rise in the United States. Typically surgery and radiation have been the standard, but in order to decrease hospital stays to satisfy insurance companies, outpatient radiation treatments has grown in popularity for oral cancer. I do imagine this made oncology very happy.

Question: What is the first thing Oncology checks before giving the next dose of chemo?

Female technician checks microscope for chemo effects on blood.
The answer why is: Your white blood cells - that is, your immune cells. Why do Oncologists check white blood cell count? To insure the count is reduced.

Because if your immune system cell count is reduced, they also know they are reducing the speed the cancer cells are multiplying.

Does Chemo Kill All The Cancer?

If you were to ask an oncologist (chemo doctor) if chemo could ever possibly kill all of the cancer cells, the honest answer would be a resounding, "Never!"

Chemotherapy doesn't work that way.

At its very best, chemo might kill 60%, 70%, maybe even 80% of the cancer cells, but there will always be some remaining.

That would make you think, "If the chemo is not going to kill all the cancer cells, and if I'm going to live, what's going to kill the rest of the cancer cells, and why don't oncologists tell me this?"

The fact is, if your immune system cannot step up and kill the last 20% or 30% of the cancer cells, you will die from that remaining cancer. Herein lies the irony. Chemotherapy destroys the ONLY thing that can possibly save your life - that is, your immune system.

Why Would Oncology Knowingly Suppress Your Immune System?

Oncology surpresses your immune system because protocol is more important than the patient. And, unless your immune system is in the best working order to do battle with cancer, cancer will always win.

Help For Your Immune System

Since chemotherapy destroys the immune system -- what is the healing method that strengthens and turns it on so that you can be healed and restored to health?

Peggy Sue Roberts in sauna tent which is a natural, alternative treatment at Mexican cancer clinics.
The Mexican Cancer Clinic I went to in early 2007 concentrates on rebuilding ans supporting your immune system. They use natural, non-invasive, non-painful treatments to awaken your immune system and get it working again.

At home you can use "Transfer Factor" but it is far better to go to the clinic.

Do you want to be cancer-free by next month? Complete the form at the bottom of this page and go to the clinic in Mexico that I went to.

After you have the contact information in hand: call the doctor to determine if you're a good candidate for natural alternative cancer treatments. If so, get yourself to the clinic in Tijuana, Mexico as soon as possible!



Alternative Cancer Treatments at a Natural, Cancer Treatment Clinic In Mexico That Works Fast To Kill Cancer and Build Up Your Immune System:

Peggy Sue Roberts receives Rife Technology which is a natural, alternative treatment at Mexican cancer clinic.
My Name is Peggy Sue Roberts and the author of this website.

In 2007 I was diagnosed with stage-4 cancer and told I had as short as 3-months to live. Oncology almost killed me with chemo, and then sent me home to die.

I researched and found a wonderful clinic in Mexico which was recommended in one of Kevin Trudeau’s books concerning “Natural Cures”. After 2-weeks of non-painful, natural treatments, I walked out of the clinic clear of cancer and ready to live again.

I highly recommend everyone with any type or stage cancer go to the Mexican cancer clinic that I went to.

PhilDidge wrote:

victorismyhero wrote:yeah??? really????

RUBBISH....only jobs being "made" at the moment are non-jobs.....agency stuff, zero hours contracts...multi share jobs...Little, if anything of substance...

what economic activity there is is based on yet another housing and credit bubble.

In the mean time, we have tens/hundreds of thousands being stigmatised, and abused in the press, Being abused by the very system that is supposed to help, and having the general (idiot) public turned against them....

70,000 deprived of any income WRONGLY...I do hope you are proud, but then you would cheer for THAT number to be made jobless????

How many have DIED as a DIRECT result of these policies...ONE is ONE TOO MANY....

Blood on their hands, and on the hands of their supporters.....

Go after those who are the REAL threat, the tax fraudsters....but no...they are your lords and masters and are too scary for you.....

is the economy growing, yes or know?
Not credible when built on the same old failed system.....which it is




Yes, thus credible economic policy


Sorry guilt arguments are bullshit Victor and make people easily led to media hype

No media hype...this was from a RW think tank.... 70,000 WRONGLY deprived of their due assistance


So take your pipe dream stories and go seek a hanky, I find most of the claims being made absurd, as why is it we need more food banks for example when we have far more people in work than under labour in the last years, less people needed JSA, people on the lowest incomes paying less tax, that people are now better off that they need to?
Its bullshit, what is a factor is that it was always needed, the fact is mistakes happen under any government but you use the old commie tried trick of guilt, sorry it does not buy


The RW hate the thought of guilt, and this is their battle cry....They WANT to destroy people without compunction or guilt...when it suits their purpose, AND the target cant bite back...thats why the cowards wont tackle tax fraud...which is a FAR greater threat to our economy.....
Are you banking this on people missing out on a weeks pay, get fucking real and enter the real world

so I'm a commie now am I....yet on another thread........?????????????????????????

Do make your mind up Didge....

I never said you were commie but using a commie trick, guilt, do keep up chap

The fact is now more are in work, the less well paid pay less in tax and minimum wage is to rise, economy growing again, more jobs, more money for people, thus Polices working. You neglect the fact again many people have placed themselves into this situation for being financially irresponsible and you seek to blame others for their own failings, not all but many have, that I find really pathetic to be honest. If people were sound with their money no matter the wage as people do it daily on the lowest incomes, then many would not need of such help, only the ones that "really" do. Thus the reality is you wished to excuse incompetence of people irresponsible with money, who live beyond their means. I wish to help them and learn the value of looking after yourself and being sensible with money, your way is denying their culpability and to blame others for their own failings in many cases


Night

PhilDidge wrote:I never said you were commie but using a commie trick, guilt, do keep up chap

The fact is now more are in work, the less well paid pay less in tax and minimum wage is to rise, economy growing again, more jobs, more money for people, thus Polices working. You neglect the fact again many people have placed themselves into this situation for being financially irresponsible and you seek to blame others for their own failings, not all but many have, that I find really pathetic to be honest. If people were sound with their money no matter the wage as people do it daily on the lowest incomes, then many would not need of such help, only the ones that "really" do. Thus the reality is you wished to excuse incompetence of people irresponsible with money, who live beyond their means. I wish to help them and learn the value of looking after yourself and being sensible with money, your way is denying their culpability and to blame others for their own failings in many cases


Night

Bololocks didge...those 70,000 did NOT get into that position by not managing their money...they got into it because of the disgusting policies and politics of those you support....Read that report...70,000 WRONGLY had their benefits withdrawn......

I just love the way you try to divert when its not to your likeing.... I NEVER mentioneed "wage levels" YOU did ...to divert.

sphinx wrote:
If you cannot see the danger of your world view it is pointless explaining it.

In a democracy it is about what people want - whether that is credibility or popularity is up to the people end of.  

 :-:cawg:-: 

Messiah complex, or what ?!?

"SPHINX isn't the Messiah ! She's just a very naughty girl !"

 ://?roflmao?/: 

victorismyhero wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:I never said you were commie but using a commie trick, guilt, do keep up chap

The fact is now more are in work, the less well paid pay less in tax and minimum wage is to rise, economy growing again, more jobs, more money for people, thus Polices working. You neglect the fact again many people have placed themselves into this situation for being financially irresponsible and you seek to blame others for their own failings, not all but many have, that I find really pathetic to be honest. If people were sound with their money no matter the wage as people do it daily on the lowest incomes, then many would not need of such help, only the ones that "really" do. Thus the reality is you wished to excuse incompetence of people irresponsible with money, who live beyond their means. I wish to help them and learn the value of looking after yourself and being sensible with money, your way is denying their culpability and to blame others for their own failings in many cases


Night

Bololocks didge...those 70,000 did NOT get into that position by not managing their money...they got into it because of the disgusting policies and politics of those you support....Read that report...70,000 WRONGLY had their benefits withdrawn......

I just love the way you try to divert when its not to your likeing.... I NEVER mentioneed "wage levels" YOU did ...to divert.

Yes you are right your claim is bollocks, 70,000 had their benefits stopped for 4 weeks, yes I read that claim again from the Guardian assuming this has an affect on food banks, comical, who are so desperate they will make chalk and cheese fit, yes I do love the way you are very gullible Victor again failing to answer my points, also neglecting if any of these people who had their money temporarily stopped were in anyway short of being able to have food provided or that they did not live with others thus solely being dependent on food themselves, so in other words a flawed perception by the Guardian you lap up. All the report did say was in their view people had been stopped unfairly. Again you ignore my points so stopping squirming out of them, which still does not deflect away from people being utterly irresponsible with their money .

Try again

The fact is now more are in work, the less well paid pay less in tax and minimum wage is to rise, economy growing again, more jobs, more money for people, thus Polices working. You neglect the fact again many people have placed themselves into this situation for being financially irresponsible and you seek to blame others for their own failings, not all but many have, that I find really pathetic to be honest. If people were sound with their money no matter the wage as people do it daily on the lowest incomes, then many would not need of such help, only the ones that "really" do. Thus the reality is you wished to excuse incompetence of people irresponsible with money, who live beyond their means. I wish to help them and learn the value of looking after yourself and being sensible with money, your way is denying their culpability and to blame others for their own failings in many cases

Croissant wrote:Here we go, Didge on a ramble of nonsensical tosh.... go and get your granny to put the kettle on and slap two crumpets in the toaster, its going to be a long evening.

The crumpets were nice   

HF, stop spamming threads that have nothing to do with your topic with this B.S.

In the UK there used to be three main political parties,Tories,Labour & LibDems.However,as these three have morphed into one political mess in which they all basically say the same thing,many Brits are looking for a party that is a bit different,talks about the things that matter to us & may just be a bit different.

Additionally,UKIP which is now emerging as the genuine third main party in succession to the LibDems it is possible for voters to vote for a truly non racist party.And that non racist party is UKIP.

Vote UKIP.You know it makes sense.

If people are voting for UKIP, of course they should get the appropriate airtime. I don't see what the problem is.

Raggamuffin wrote:If people are voting for UKIP, of course they should get the appropriate airtime. I don't see what the problem is.

The problem is that politics and democracy are not quite the clear innocent pool where people are properly given choice as is generally portrayed.

sphinx wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:If people are voting for UKIP, of course they should get the appropriate airtime. I don't see what the problem is.

The problem is that politics and democracy are not quite the clear innocent pool where people are properly given choice as is generally portrayed.

The old babble on democracy again, tell, me what is true democracy again?

Again credibility is about credible policies, they have little in that capacity, I though am all for UKIP to make complete muppets of themselves in debate so people we see for themselves they are nothing but a party that plays upon fear and have no credibility. Whilst not even providing any repercussions for their actions they would take.
That again shows they seek to play off fear and not be responsible and outline what their policies would constitute for Britain if we left the EU

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

The problem is that politics and democracy are not quite the clear innocent pool where people are properly given choice as is generally portrayed.

The old babble on democracy again, tell, me what is true democracy again?

Again credibility is about credible policies, they have little in that capacity, I though am all for UKIP to make complete muppets of themselves in debate so people we see for themselves they are nothing but a party that plays upon fear and have no credibility. Whilst not even providing any repercussions for their actions they would take.
That again shows they seek to play off fear and not be responsible and outline what their policies would constitute for Britain if we left the EU

You think they have no credibility - others believe they do have credibility. The definition of democracy is that the man who thinks they have credibility has as much value as the one who thinks they do not - both are entitled to be heard equally.

At the moment the Liberal Democrats have a larger entitlement to airtime even though they have less people thinking their policies are credible. Do you call that democracy?

You keep on saying that UKIP play on fear didge.

So you are saying a lot of people in the UK are now scared of the huge amount of immigration and the problems that has caused?

That's fair enough - I don't think a single poster here would argue that we have had too much immigration in too short a space of time.

So what do those people do? Ignore it? Keep voting the same Party in?

Or do they vote for the Party which has said "we'll sort those nightmares out for you"?

So, when you say "nothing but a party that plays upon fear" you mean "a Party which has said they'll do what the people want"!

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:



The old babble on democracy again, tell, me what is true democracy again?

Again credibility is about credible policies, they have little in that capacity, I though am all for UKIP to make complete muppets of themselves in debate so people we see for themselves they are nothing but a party that plays upon fear and have no credibility. Whilst not even providing any repercussions for their actions they would take.
That again shows they seek to play off fear and not be responsible and outline what their policies would constitute for Britain if we left the EU

You think they have no credibility - others believe they do have credibility.  The definition of democracy is that the man who thinks they have credibility has as much value as the one who thinks they do not - both are entitled to be heard equally.

At the moment the Liberal Democrats have a larger entitlement to airtime even though they have less people thinking their policies are credible.  Do you call that democracy?

Think?
No I know they have no creditability for the reasons given, yes people that place faith in stupidity are thus normally blind to the reality when as seen the party itself cannot offer any view to the repercussions of leaving the EU or the fact we can just even ignore EU rulings as we already do on many things or how we can like with other EU nations renegotiate free movement within the EU.

Again you miss the point, I am all for the UKIP to being as much air time as possible, I was happy for the BNP to have this, because it makes for great entertainment. Nigel is a good speaker but have seen him falter now more time than I care to remember when put under the spotlight, if this is televised he willl lose the party what little credibility they had with some voters


That is not the definition of true democracy, that was just complete babble you made up, so again:

So does credibility come with popularity or sound policies?

Double post

BigAndy9 wrote:You keep on saying that UKIP play on fear didge.

So you are saying a lot of people in the UK are now scared of the huge amount of immigration and the problems that has caused?

That's fair enough - I don't think a single poster here would argue that we have had too much immigration in too short a space of time.

So what do those people do?  Ignore it?  Keep voting the same Party in?

Or do they vote for the Party which has said "we'll sort those nightmares out for you"?

So, when you say "nothing but a party that plays upon fear" you mean "a Party which has said they'll do what the people want"!

Of those who do have fear, ask yourself why?
Most sensible people are concerned at levels of immigration for schools, hospitals ect, but some use this as a view to be prejudice against immigrants, of which the UKIP party sadly draws to them.

I never said ignore it, but the UKIP way forward is flawed to say the least and yes I do back the Tories to get this resolved in the end, but things take time, sadly UKIPPERS expect things done over night, that is not a reality

PhilDidge wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:You keep on saying that UKIP play on fear didge.

So you are saying a lot of people in the UK are now scared of the huge amount of immigration and the problems that has caused?

That's fair enough - I don't think a single poster here would argue that we have had too much immigration in too short a space of time.

So what do those people do?  Ignore it?  Keep voting the same Party in?

Or do they vote for the Party which has said "we'll sort those nightmares out for you"?

So, when you say "nothing but a party that plays upon fear" you mean "a Party which has said they'll do what the people want"!

Of those who do have fear, ask yourself why?
Most sensible people are concerned at levels of immigration for schools, hospitals ect, but some use this as a view to be prejudice against immigrants, of which the UKIP party sadly draws to them.

I never said ignore it, but the UKIP way forward is flawed to say the least and yes I do back the Tories to get this resolved in the end, but things take time, sadly UKIPPERS expect things done over night, that is not a reality

You have figures for this didge, or is it assumption?

BigAndy9 wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Of those who do have fear, ask yourself why?
Most sensible people are concerned at levels of immigration for schools, hospitals ect, but some use this as a view to be prejudice against immigrants, of which the UKIP party sadly draws to them.

I never said ignore it, but the UKIP way forward is flawed to say the least and yes I do back the Tories to get this resolved in the end, but things take time, sadly UKIPPERS expect things done over night, that is not a reality

You have figures for this didge, or is it assumption?

If they are not sensible Andy, like I stated, then there are only one thing else they could be, can you work out what that would be?
I do not think UKIP want to be know as being supported by many with those views, do you?

PhilDidge wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:


You have figures for this didge, or is it assumption?

If they are not sensible Andy, like I stated, then there are only one thing else, can you work out what that would be?
I do not think UKIP want to be know as being supported by many with those views, do you?

You said most sensible people didge - who are the most sensible, where are the figures for this?

The only figures you can use are the ones who vote for them - you can't then assume that 80% voted because of this and 20% for that.

Come on didge - listen to your own teachings.

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

You think they have no credibility - others believe they do have credibility.  The definition of democracy is that the man who thinks they have credibility has as much value as the one who thinks they do not - both are entitled to be heard equally.

At the moment the Liberal Democrats have a larger entitlement to airtime even though they have less people thinking their policies are credible.  Do you call that democracy?

Think?
No I know they have no creditability for the reasons given, yes people that place faith in stupidity are thus normally blind to the reality when as seen the party itself cannot offer any view to the repercussions of leaving the EU or the fact we can just even ignore EU rulings as we already do on many things or how we can like with other EU nations renegotiate free movement within the EU.

Again you miss the point, I am all for the UKIP to being as much air time as possible, I was happy for the BNP to have this, because it makes for great entertainment. Nigel is a good speaker but have seen him falter now more time than I care to remember when put under the spotlight, if this is televised he willl lose the party what little credibility they had with some voters


That is not the definition of true democracy, that was just complete babble you made up, so again:

So does credibility come with popularity or sound policies?

So in other words you are using a vast spiel to try and make yourself look somehow different and special as you agree that if so many people are supporting them that they have pushed one of the traditional 3 into 4th place within 20 years of coming into existence they should be granted equal air time.

Here is a little concept to think about - that those people supporting UKIP are the ones that are right.

BigAndy9 wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


If they are not sensible Andy, like I stated, then there are only one thing else, can you work out what that would be?
I do not think UKIP want to be know as being supported by many with those views, do you?

You said most sensible people didge - who are the most sensible, where are the figures for this?

The only figures you can use are the ones who vote for them - you can't then assume that 80% voted because of this and 20% for that.

Come on didge - listen to your own teachings.

Well Polls indicate many do not want immigration stopped but controlled, so that would suggest many people in my view who are UKIPERS have sensible view points on immigration as mentioned, if not they are just prejudiced racist idiots, which the party does not need for its image.

Behave sunshine, so what do you follow sensible views to control immigration, or do you support stopping altogether not based upon sound reasoning but fear based prejudice?
lol

Polls are just manipulated lies.

PhilDidge wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

You said most sensible people didge - who are the most sensible, where are the figures for this?

The only figures you can use are the ones who vote for them - you can't then assume that 80% voted because of this and 20% for that.

Come on didge - listen to your own teachings.

Well Polls indicate many do not want immigration stopped but controlled, so that would suggest many people in my view who are UKIPERS have sensible view points on immigration as mentioned, if not they are just prejudiced racist idiots, which the party does not need for its image.

Behave sunshine, so what do you follow sensible views to control immigration, or do you support stopping altogether not based upon sound reasoning but fear based prejudice?
lol

You are aware I presume that UKIP do not and never have wanted zero immigration? That from the start their problem has been open door immigration and they have campaigned for controlled immigration?

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:



Think?
No I know they have no creditability for the reasons given, yes people that place faith in stupidity are thus normally blind to the reality when as seen the party itself cannot offer any view to the repercussions of leaving the EU or the fact we can just even ignore EU rulings as we already do on many things or how we can like with other EU nations renegotiate free movement within the EU.

Again you miss the point, I am all for the UKIP to being as much air time as possible, I was happy for the BNP to have this, because it makes for great entertainment. Nigel is a good speaker but have seen him falter now more time than I care to remember when put under the spotlight, if this is televised he willl lose the party what little credibility they had with some voters


That is not the definition of true democracy, that was just complete babble you made up, so again:

So does credibility come with popularity or sound policies?

So in other words you are using a vast spiel to try and make yourself look somehow different and special  as you agree that if so many people are supporting them that they have pushed one of the traditional 3 into 4th place within 20 years of coming into existence they should be granted equal air time.

Here is a little concept to think about - that those people supporting UKIP are the ones that are right.

Really, that is what UKIP is actually trying to do and at present people are buying this because they do not read between the lines, I love how you have no argument and thus turn it onto me now with claims on spiel, utterly pathetic, grow up woman ha ha.

So you place popularity over creditability, says it all really, who knows maybe you will get a chance to vote in the krankies, as celebs tend to do well in popularity with becoming politicians.



never laughed so much, if people place more stock in popularity, than credible policies, then I truly fear for the future, as thus a party would be voted in not for what they could do, but because they are like, comical and dangerous

If the Police falsify stats then some research bureau canvassing political views can. It's not controlled.

PhilDidge wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

You said most sensible people didge - who are the most sensible, where are the figures for this?

The only figures you can use are the ones who vote for them - you can't then assume that 80% voted because of this and 20% for that.

Come on didge - listen to your own teachings.

Well Polls indicate many do not want immigration stopped but controlled, so that would suggest many people in my view who are UKIPERS have sensible view points on immigration as mentioned, if not they are just prejudiced racist idiots, which the party does not need for its image.

Behave sunshine, so what do you follow sensible views to control immigration, or do you support stopping altogether not based upon sound reasoning but fear based prejudice?
lol

I'm for controlled immigration - let us choose who we want, when we want.

Isn't that UKIP's policy?

So anybody voting UKIP - isn't that what they want?

Come on didge - are you now going to tell us that you have assumed that is what 50% want but the other 50% are racist pigs who want all immigration stopped?

Come on, own up didge!

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Well Polls indicate many do not want immigration stopped but controlled, so that would suggest many people in my view who are UKIPERS have sensible view points on immigration as mentioned, if not they are just prejudiced racist idiots, which the party does not need for its image.

Behave sunshine, so what do you follow sensible views to control immigration, or do you support stopping altogether not based upon sound reasoning but fear based prejudice?
lol

You are aware I presume that UKIP do not and never have wanted zero immigration?  That from the start their problem has been open door immigration and they have campaigned for controlled immigration?

Yes I am well aware they claim this now, they also want to deny people living here from the EU rights to stay after making lives here for years and send them back, very BNP

BigAndy9 wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Well Polls indicate many do not want immigration stopped but controlled, so that would suggest many people in my view who are UKIPERS have sensible view points on immigration as mentioned, if not they are just prejudiced racist idiots, which the party does not need for its image.

Behave sunshine, so what do you follow sensible views to control immigration, or do you support stopping altogether not based upon sound reasoning but fear based prejudice?
lol

I'm for controlled immigration - let us choose who we want, when we want.

Isn't that UKIP's policy?

So anybody voting UKIP - isn't that what they want?

Come on didge - are you now going to tell us that you have assumed that is what 50% want but the other 50% are racist pigs who want all immigration stopped?

Come on, own up didge!

Is it UKIP policiy, with the hue and cry they made over Bulgarians and Romanians last year?
Please spare me the bull Andy, I saw the poor way they choose to play on fear over this as you did also.

So yes I am all for controlled immigration agreed by the EU nations

The other policy on the EU is absurd, when you think about it, even more so when they are looking to be elected for something they want out of

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

So in other words you are using a vast spiel to try and make yourself look somehow different and special  as you agree that if so many people are supporting them that they have pushed one of the traditional 3 into 4th place within 20 years of coming into existence they should be granted equal air time.

Here is a little concept to think about - that those people supporting UKIP are the ones that are right.

Really, that is what UKIP is actually trying to do and at present people are buying this because they do not read between the lines, I love how you have no argument and thus turn it onto me now with claims on spiel, utterly pathetic, grow up woman ha ha.

So you place popularity over creditability, says it all really, who knows maybe you will get a chance to vote in the krankies, as celebs tend to do well in popularity with becoming politicians.



never laughed so much, if people place more stock in popularity, than credible policies, then I truly fear for the future, as thus a party would be voted in not for what they could do, but because they are like, comical and dangerous

You are avoiding the point - why are they popular Didge?

Croissant wrote:If the Police falsify stats then some research bureau canvassing political views can.  It's not controlled.

How did they falsify the other crime stats?

How naive are you?

Nobody replies to me, WTF am I here?



Don't understand the question Dodge.

Croissant wrote:Nobody replies to me, WTF am I here?



Don't understand the question Dodge.

https://fullfact.org/articles/dromey_unreliable_crime_statistics_rising_crime_dilnot-29345

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

You are aware I presume that UKIP do not and never have wanted zero immigration?  That from the start their problem has been open door immigration and they have campaigned for controlled immigration?

Yes I am well aware they claim this now, they also want to deny people living here from the EU rights to stay after making lives here for years and send them back, very BNP

No they dont.

They say that those who are here legally stay here - the only ones they want out are the illegals.

Dodge, these polls are carried out by people who have their own political views and want to control the data. What a person on the street says ain't necessarily what appears at the other end.

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Yes I am well aware they claim this now, they also want to deny people living here from the EU rights to stay after making lives here for years and send them back, very BNP

No they dont.

They say that those who are here legally stay here - the only ones they want out are the illegals.

Which has been policy (and the law) as long as I can remember.

Labour began (attempting) to force people back a few years ago.

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Yes I am well aware they claim this now, they also want to deny people living here from the EU rights to stay after making lives here for years and send them back, very BNP

No they dont.

They say that those who are here legally stay here - the only ones they want out are the illegals.

How can a person with free movement from an EU country be here illegally?

Croissant wrote:Dodge, these polls are carried out by people who have their own political views and want to control the data.  What a person on the street says ain't necessarily what appears at the other end.

Sorry if you are going to be utterly dim, then please do not bother debating with me

Thanks

Okay, I'll leave...nobody on here is being friendly.   

Croissant wrote:Dodge, these polls are carried out by people who have their own political views and want to control the data.  What a person on the street says ain't necessarily what appears at the other end.

That's very true Croissant.

The only time we see the truth is with an election, where people can show their views privately, with an X.

Croissant wrote:Okay, I'll leave...nobody on here is being friendly.    

Keith just stop being so silly, crime has fallen to claim otherwise is absurd and no I do not want you to leave but debate with sense

Thank you

BigAndy9 wrote:

Croissant wrote:Dodge, these polls are carried out by people who have their own political views and want to control the data.  What a person on the street says ain't necessarily what appears at the other end.

That's very true Croissant.

The only time we see the truth is with an election, where people can show their views privately, with an X.

Again absurd based upon gobbldygook

PhilDidge wrote:

Croissant wrote:Okay, I'll leave...nobody on here is being friendly.    

Keith just stop being so silly, crime has fallen to claim otherwise is absurd and no I do not want you to leave but debate with sense

Thank you

But the police and those who produce statistics have said the figures can't be trusted didge.

I hope UKIP come through strongly on the election but I fear an all out smear campaign from the main 3 as they are running scared..