A trip to the Twilight Zone with a support guy called Iron Maiden Thank you for submitting a support request. You can put your clothes back on now. In another dimension, logging a call could involve a full invasive strip search. Or perhaps there’d be a sado-dimensional version of Zendesk in which, having determined that a user is raising frivolous issues, sends attitude-corrective electric …
Possibly, as some tones and sounds do merge with slight hearing loss. however it may be his brain. If he heard the people perfectly, but it was the spelling/meaning/ordering that seems wrong. Otherwise known as Dyslexia. I'd not be able to repeat some of my miss reads/miss heard conversations. :P
Alistair Dabbs, are you perhaps Dyslexic? (Yes, it effects word and letter ordering in hearing as well as reading)
Some time ago, a colleague and I were sat outside a little bar in Cologne, while waiting for the right moment to set off for the airport and due to the heavy night before, we ordered water.
The German waitress asked us, in the slight yank accent alluded to, whether we would like that with gargles.
Cue two puzzled faces.
After some toing and froing we decided that she actually meant "bubbles"....... despite her insistence that she was correct.
Either she was cloth-eared or, somewhere in the Cologne area, there's a yank teaching English who has a mean streak.
"In my experience, the dont do water in Cologne, only Kölsch. Not much difference anyway."
As per the ancient verse:
...ye gods that reign o'er sewers and sinks
The river Rhine, it is well known
Doth wash the city of Cologne.
But tell me, nymphs, what power divine
Should thenceforth wash the river Rhine?
It wasn't the Leave vote that depressed me,so much as these "reasons" that people gave/are giving and that so many seem to rely on just one reason without any clear lack of thought about or interest in any other consequences.
There's the "We don't mind immigration, but we want to control it" ( But they haven't though through if it's possible) And they don't care about any other effects of leaving.
Or the "We want that 3XX million pounds a week to spend on the NHS" (Did they really think that it will go to the NHS even if it's true) but no interest in where the money is going - like the money being spent in their own town to rebuild their own town centre. or how much difference it would make.
The there's the one Dabbsy mentions. The one about "control". Er sorry, but how much control do we have over Crapita when they are given all our public service to run ( read "milk"). And as it happens we won't have voted for the next PM. And possibly not the one after either, since our voting options are looking pretty limited at the moment.
The Electoral Commission shouldn't have let it go through without a big huge book detailing what happens in the case of Brexit from someone. Or it should have phrased the question like this:
Vote only once:
Would you like the UK to remain a member of the EU? [ ]
Would you like a constitutional crisis with nobody having any idea what happens next, no effective government, a power vacuum, and politicians stabbing each other in the back for possibly weeks on end? [ ]
Quote :Would you like a constitutional crisis with nobody having any idea what happens next, no effective government, a power vacuum, and politicians stabbing each other in the back for possibly weeks on end? [ ]
Yupp thats my tick box... because we've just gone into the knife making business*, and plan on setting up shop outside the houses of parliment :)
* ok its surgical knives... but imagine what you could do with a 16" amputation knife........
I would have put a picture of Michael Gove next to the Leave box.
Andy Burnham thinks Gove has moral authority, proof if proof was needed that deselection of most Labour MPs is needed before the next election, because it looks like one of them who wanted to be leader wouldn't know moral authority if the clouds parted and it descended on a solid gold throne drawn by unicorns with a choir of angels singing.
I am disturbed by what seems to be becoming the norm, which is having this country being 'run' by a PM that hasn't won their spot by a majority vote at a general election.
Brown. Replaced Blair, no general election held.
Cameron (1). Result of hung parliament / coalition, no majority win.
and now it's looking like who ever comes in next will slide in through the back door as well. Either Gove, or everyone's favourite Big Brother fanatic May.
You vote for your local MP and the party they are a member of will run the government if enough of their MPs are elected. You do not get to vote for the PM, unless you happen to be in their constituency, in which case it will be a safe seat and your vote makes no difference anyway.
As a member of a party you may be able to vote for someone to be head of the party, however again you are not strictly voting for a PM.
I may have ended up voting Conservative last time, but only because that seemed marginally less worse than not voting for anyone. I most definitely did not vote for Cameron, he was a negative contributor to my vote evaluation, his party candidate got my vote despite him.
Perhaps a leave vote was the only way we had of registering dissatisfaction with democratic process used by the EU. While voting by proxy is well established I would like to see a requirement in the treaties that form the EU that a new treaty has to be voted in by referenda in all member states that then achieve majority agreement in all states.
Living in a democracy means that if you accept the method used then you must accept the result of the vote and move on. If you do not accept the method then that is a different campaign, see the UK referendum on proportional representation.
If you do not accept the method then that is a different campaign, see the UK referendum on proportional representation.
Which would have been fine, if it wasn't for the Government -- for reasons which completely escape me -- selecting the least appealing method of proportional representation out of the seven (if I remember my school lessons correctly) possible methods available.
"for reasons which completely escape me"
Simple: even those in favour of PR wouldn't accept it (it's much harder to change a second time, than reject the offer and go for something better later).
The New Zealand model would have been much better:
1: Stay with FPP or move to PR
2: If moving to PR, which version do you want?
"Having this country being 'run' by a PM that hasn't won their spot by a majority vote at a general election."
No party has won an actual, _real_ majority vote at a general election in a very long time.
The Conservatives and Labour have been trading places based on receiving 33-35% of the vote. Hardly a majority. Gerrymandering is what makes most of the difference.
Anyway, voters elect the party. The party selects its leader and he selects his cabinet. Any idea that you're voting for _anyone_ as prime minister is misguided at best.
"Anyway, voters elect the party. The party selects its leader and he selects his cabinet. Any idea that you're voting for _anyone_ as prime minister is misguided at best."
Just as any idea that you get a choice over who to vote for as MP is misguided at best.
If you're not in a local party or on it's selection committee (or whatever particular process is used), you don't select the candidate. If it's a safe seat then it's a small group of party members who are responsible for "electing" your MP.
I am disturbed by what seems to be becoming the norm, which is having this country being 'run' by a PM that hasn't won their spot by a majority vote at a general election.
Have you considered moving to a nation where the head of government is directly elected then?
I mean, let's be honest... the PM is elected to parliament by a majority of voters in his constituency, and being head of government is something the majority party confers on him
But we don't vote for the PM and never have done. We vote for a party who chooses their leader internally and then, in turn, the leader appoints the cabinet.
To vote for the PM directly would invite a "cult of personality" contest, rather than one decided on the issues and policies, which is the main argument against televised debates; it reinforces this misunderstanding of the political process.
Believe it or not, its the same in America; the people there may think they are voting for Clinton or Trump, but in reality they are voting democrat or republican.
@Terry 6 -With respect - rubbish. I had been thinking of trying to point out where the Remain side got things so horribly wrong - and are continuing to do so, but there's a gentleman has put it into words rather more clearly than I could: http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.co.uk/
I'd add that I've seen plenty of mindless anti-racism of late*, and it's just as unlovely and harmful as mindless racism. One would have to be particularly naieve or gullible to believe that overnight half the populace have suddenly become slavering racists when they were not before. If you're not willing to discuss reasonably what someone else sees as being a problem, but instead prefer to just hurl insults at them, why, then you're a bigot. And it's only the bigots on both sides that think the Leave win has been a victory for racism. Everyone of any sense realises it's actually indicative of very real problems having been swept under the carpet for too long by our political leaders. It may be too late for us to remain in the EU, but it's not too late for reasoned discussion, and indeed, it's even more important than ever before, now.
*attended many Rock against Racism events in the 70's. Voted left or Green all my life. Friends, workmates and teammates of all hues and from all over the world. No, I am not a racist, and neither is any of those I know that voted Leave. Nor am I or they stupid, or ignorant of the realities of the EU and Brexit. We were offered two evils to choose from, and neither option was a good one - IMO. Go in peace, and may deity smile upon you all, whatever you voted.
I've heard a lot of people who voted Leave blaming the Remainers this week (instead of revelling in their [pyrrhic] "victory"). None of them seem to blame themselves for having been mislead, or the Leave campaigners for misleading them with the four* Big Lies (Immigration, £350m, access to EEA and "unelected Eurocrats"). * Three of which have been quietly dropped now that they're inconvenient.
How do you counter a Big Lie? Doing it directly is difficult as the Lie is appealing and sounds plausible. So, avoiding it by pointing out a greater truth then? It had better be big - How about "Leaving the EU will wreck our economy"? "The EU prevents war". Hmm, they don't have much of a ring to them, and are easily countered by a fifth Big Lie "Project Fear - Don't listen to Experts!". So, focus on positives then - "The EU has reduced phone roaming charges". There are plenty of them, but they're hardly headline material. Clearly the Remain campaign didn't find an effective counter, and I don't have a better one. Maybe Cameron should have stayed out of the fight and let someone else run a splashy "Love EU" campaign? (and end up as next PM? Hmm, not gonna let that happen!).
Regarding racism - If Nigel Farage is on your side, you're going to get tarred with the same brush. (If you'll pardon the irony of that expression in this context).
@Tfewster - sorry, but you are assuming that people only made up their minds based on what everyone I know agrees was a spectacularly shameful amd misleading campaigning by both sides.
The fact of the matter is that the way that immigration has been handled over the years has been a major problem. The poorest in society don't get much choice of where they live, and if that means that over the years the areas where they live start feeling strange and alien due to an influx of large numbers of people from radically different cultures, that is liable to make a lot of people feel uneasy, unless there is integration between the newcomers and the folk that already live there.
In an ideal world, new immigrants woudl all do their best to integrate, and all already here would do their best to help them do so and welcome them. But this is not that ideal world. In reality, not only do we have fascist bigots like the BNP to contend with, we also have religous bigots of varying sorts amongst the immigrants (I've personally encountered Eastern European islampohobes as well as Muslim Anglophobes), not to mention blatant misogynists. (yeah, yeah - get those amongst non-immigrants too..)
In my opinion, we should have had some kind of citizenship test for immigrants, irrespective of background long ago, and with a clear rule, rigidly enforced, that failure to meet the citizenship requirements would mean swift deportation to country of origin. Yes, I am quite aware of how carefully such a thing would need to be implemented in order to make it both practical and just, thank you. The point being to have a system whereby those who come here because they admire our tolerant society and can fit in easily can do so; those who wish to but need some help learning our ways get that help - and those who think they can impose alien ways of bigotry are soon weeded out and ejected. I want refugees escaping horrific regimes to feel safe here, rather than to feel that the problems they wished to escape have followe dthem and threaten them still.
But no - all we have heard from politicians for so long is that 'immigration is good for the economy'., as if that were ALL that mattered. I'm sure that it's all that matters to big business, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if they've been behind the tendency to smear anyone expressing concern about untrammeled immigration as racist. But to people, it's people that matter most.
I am not blaming all who voted Remain for what has happened; but I am saying that it looks to me as if perhaps some of them have been blinded to the issues that have been ignored by our politicians, and there has most definitely been too much unjust name-calling from the Remain side.
Claiming that 'if Nigel Farrage is on your side you're going to get tarred with the same brush' really says that you are unwilling to listen to reasoned argumenmt, but will instead react emotively. It tells me that you don't really care what the issues are that have caused this situation to arise, and it suggests that you might automatically vote the opposite of whatever Mr Farrage supports, without thinking about. It suggests, in short, uncritical thinking on your part. I don't say that you ARE uncritical, I merely point out the flaw in your argument.
Can you not see that it is entirely possible for others to have weighed the pros and cons of Europe in the balance and found it so wanting as to wish to give up EU membership WITHOUT their being racist? And that just because some racists also wish us to leave the EU that that does not make the others who also voted to Leave raicst? And that if you 'tar them with the same brush' that it merely displays bigotry and uncritical thinking on your part? Was everyone who supported remain a model of unbigoted humanity and critical thinking? I rather suspect not. Please think on that. And think on why there were Leave voters amongst those who are of immigrant families themselves.
I repeat - name-calling will not help, particularly if such an odious one as 'racist' is flung at those who simply are not so. We can't go back in time and avert either the referndum or further back, the mishandling of immigration that cuased the vote on it to go the way that it did. What we CAN do is try to find the best way forward by taking a calm honest look at the problems that we face together, and work out how best to overcome them.
And for god's sake, don't let the actual racists think they've got more support than they really have. They're a dickheaded tiny minority - always have been, always will be.
Keep Calm. Carry on. Fight intolerance. It's the British way.
You don't need to assume that all the Leave voters chose that route for flawed reasons to see the referendum as terribly flawed.
There only needed to be a shift of two percentage points to reverse the result.
So a noticeable percentage being deflected by appalling misrepresentation of the costs of the EU, or false promises of being able to have our immigration cake and eat our Free Trade agreement etc. is a very good reason to invalidate that referendum.
It was Farage who had said that voting figures like those ought to lead to a second referendum - when he thought he'd lose. Likewise the petition about voting came from a Brexiteer, before the result, because he thought they might lose by a small percentage.
"It was Farage who had said that voting figures like those ought to lead to a second referendum - when he thought he'd lose. Likewise the petition about voting came from a Brexiteer, before the result, because he thought they might lose by a small percentage."
The trouble with the second referendum idea is that that might also give a small margin one way or another so do you then go for a third - a fourth...?
The answer is to realise that the margin for a change needs to be substantial - 60:40 or maybe 2/3:1/3. We've had a referendum. It didn't make those numbers. End of story.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
