BoneDog Posted 24 October 2009 Posted 24 October 2009 I had a feeling that this show would somehow improve the BNP popularity. I suppose it was obvious really considering the shower of shite we've had in charge for as many years as I can remember. I wouldn't vote for any of them though, what's the point of voting for someone on a false manifesto?
Guest Posted 24 October 2009 Posted 24 October 2009 I take no notice of Sky's poll. 1,314 voters? It's not a proper representative sample, really.
davieG Posted 24 October 2009 Posted 24 October 2009 I take no notice of Sky's poll. 1,314 voters? It's not a proper representative sample, really. It's the normal size they use for all the health scares so this works as a health warning - more than 1 hour of Griffin on the Box a day is likely to make the ignorant vote BNP
l444ry Posted 24 October 2009 Posted 24 October 2009 I take no notice of Sky's poll. 1,314 voters? It's not a proper representative sample, really. Hope you're right, Lisa. However, judging by my recent forays into various hostelries and the like, BNP sympathy is even greater than that. This is why I cannot understand the naivety of those who advocate giving these rats "freedom of speech."
Thracian Posted 24 October 2009 Posted 24 October 2009 Seriously though, polygamy? Is that really going to lower the standards in Britain, seeing as some couples, married or not, have affairs? Or 'play the field'? Or whatever. If there is a broad consensus in favour of polygamy why not have the debate and change the law if necessary. But change the law for everyone. Not just for the convenience of incomers. Personally I think the idea of polygamy in an already over-populated world is irresponsible. Nor do I believew that it is in the interests of this nation and its people - one of the fundamental requirements of law as far as far as I am concerned. And while I am well aware that people have affairs don't expect me to justify them. I think in most cases they cause untold and unnecessary misery for far too many people to be justified. Adultery would be a serious crime in my book.
Flynny Posted 24 October 2009 Posted 24 October 2009 I take no notice of Sky's poll. 1,314 voters? It's not a proper representative sample, really. Yougov polls and such are usually around 1000 people and they tend to be pretty accurate.
Alexikokopops Posted 24 October 2009 Posted 24 October 2009 I take no notice of Sky's poll. 1,314 voters? It's not a proper representative sample, really. Using a UK population of 61,113,205 and working under the assumption that you'd expect a proportion of 6.2% (because that's the percentage of the vote the BNP got at the last election), if you wanted to obtain an estimate of the population mean to within 1.5% with 95% certainty then you'd only need a sample size of 993 people if they were selected from the population at random. If you assume the YouGov poll was selected at random then 1,314 is more than enough. The real question is how was the sampling done to get those 1,314? The likelihood is that it is biased because the people who tend to respond feel more strongly about the subject matter. If you worked with no underlying assumption of what you'd expect the proportion to be interested in the BNP (where I used 6.2% before) then a sample size of 1068 would be enough if you wanted to obtain an estimate of the population mean to within 3% with 95% certainty.
Guest Posted 24 October 2009 Posted 24 October 2009 If there is a broad consensus in favour of polygamy why not have the debate and change the law if necessary. But change the law for everyone. Not just for the convenience of incomers. Personally I think the idea of polygamy in an already over-populated world is irresponsible. Nor do I believew that it is in the interests of this nation and its people - one of the fundamental requirements of law as far as far as I am concerned. And while I am well aware that people have affairs don't expect me to justify them. I think in most cases they cause untold and unnecessary misery for far too many people to be justified. Adultery would be a serious crime in my book. What has polygamy got to do with overpopulation? Yougov polls and such are usually around 1000 people and they tend to be pretty accurate. It depends on when and where a poll is conducted. I would guess the Sky one is one where people can be arsed to texted or red button their response, whereas Yougov, MORI etc are done in a more controlled manner, if that's the right word. I for one would take part in one of the Yougov polls, if asked, yet I would never text a Sky poll. I still think that 1,000 for a population of 58m is pretty small.
Trav Le Bleu Posted 24 October 2009 Posted 24 October 2009 22% of people would consider voting BNP! That means approx. 1500 members of this forum! :o Let's start a list of whom they might be... I suggest starting with people in the Charnwood district. EDIT: oops, sorry. For all the grammaticists out there (and people who think Churchill would have voted BNP) I have corrected my glaring who/whom error!
Thracian Posted 24 October 2009 Posted 24 October 2009 But two people in love, should it matter? It depends on the standards you set for the society you live in, if any. Is your argument that "it does no harm" or that "people should be free to indulge whatever sexuality they like?". If so, why should any form of sexuality be frowned on? If, however, you believe that love/relationships/marriage should be about two people, one of either sex, getting on enough to have children, provide them with a home and to care for them responsibly then your standards are going to be compromised. It seems to me that homosexual debate has been rammed down our throats by the same Left wing/liberal social engineeers that have inflicted the unnaturally rapid drive towards multiculturalism on us - without so much as a widespread debate or a by-your-leave from those that elected them. They have done it by stealth, just as they have given our rights away to Europe, because they knew it would be highly controversial if not downright unacceptable. And they are the same misguided social engineeers who have done so much to discredit the value of the nuclear family with such harmful consequences as are now there to be seen in everyday life...poor academic attainment, insufficient family support and, more broadly, a society where more families are breaking up due to low income, loss of jobs and the resulting reactions that have acted as an unprecedented rallying call for presently odious parties like the BNP. A society where for every person that has benefitted, another, and often many others have suffered. I don't need to detail why the Left-wing/liberalist policies have left us, not with a better, fairer, more culturally tolerant society but with a monster. It is there for all to see if you care to look. Homosexuality was never a big issue in my youth. Why? Because it was too disgusting. Not at all. As a youngster most every 14/15/16-year-old adolescent kid I ever knew would share a wank - perhaps even more - with his mates. In fact their hormones were raging to such an extent they'd have bonked a lamp-post if it moved or had any sort of hole. Besides they all wanted to know if theirs was as big and as potent as their pals. Same gender sex was as much a part of life as the joy, for most, of finally getting up to Newarke or Wyggy Girls and finding that the fun to be experienced there was so much greater. It didn't need a public forum. Today we have gay parades in the street. Not as an expression of love but as a social statement. What next? A parade for guys with their 10-year-old girl lovers? To use your words ... "Should it matter?" Because if you change the perception of public decency is there any reason to retain constraints of any sort? Many of us would say yes. The issue is complex and always has been. But like all complex issues you have to eventually take a line which is justifiable and, hopefully, seen to be for the greater good. And with that in mind I preferred my time when same gender sex was broadly accepted but not paraded as the norm and productive relationships were encouraged and respected by a nation who's laws were there to protect the nation's interest as well as the individual's interest (as I have constantly argued). You need opposite-sex couples and families to provide children and so maintain the stock of the nation for all it's requirements and for the continuance of our part of human existence and develoment. Same sex relationships don't produce anyone and there is considerable controversy about whether they are beneficial in an adoption situation. And once you agree to promote same gender "love" as the norm, as mentioned before, you are on a slippery slope. Because in what way, if love is the guiding yardstick, should any sexual constraints really be justified?
Flynny Posted 24 October 2009 Posted 24 October 2009 Homosexuality was never a big issue in my youth. Why? Because it was too disgusting. Not at all.As a youngster most every 14/15/16-year-old adolescent kid I ever knew would share a wank - perhaps even more - with his mates. In fact their hormones were raging to such an extent they'd have bonked a lamp-post if it moved or had any sort of hole. Besides they all wanted to know if theirs was as big and as potent as their pals. Same gender sex was as much a part of life as the joy, for most of us, of finally getting up to Newarke or Wyggy Girls and finding that the fun to be experienced there was so much greater. It didn't need a public forum. I'm still too immature not to giggle at this. Sorry Thrac. I had to stop reading.
Guest Posted 24 October 2009 Posted 24 October 2009 Far too much information....... I did not get married to have children. There is nothing in any Marriage Act or in the wording of my marriage ceremony that said that the reason behind my marriage was to procreate. I know that Sir F and I aren't the only married couple who have no intention of having kids.
Zingari Posted 24 October 2009 Posted 24 October 2009 22% of people would consider voting BNP! That means approx. 1500 members of this forum! :o Let's start a list of whom they might be... I suggest starting with people in the Charnwood district. EDIT: oops, sorry. For all the grammaticists out there (and people who think Churchill would have voted BNP) I have corrected my glaring who/whom error! The only time i consider voting BNP is after reading one of Nick's posts . I'm sure posters such as he do more for BNPs recruitment than any rabid activist diatribes . I don't know what dastardly form of reverse psychology he uses and I wonder who he is actually working for to have this effect on me . Fortunately I soon come to my senses and realise how these things work , but I'm not sure what the cumalitive efffect of reading his posts will eventually have on me so I intend to take better precautions in the future
Babylon Posted 24 October 2009 Posted 24 October 2009 Did I really just read that thracian was part of a daisy chain in his past?
Flynny Posted 24 October 2009 Posted 24 October 2009 I find it interesting that there's loads more BNP members in Charnwood and North Leicestershire wards than in any of the city wards, where the actual "bloody immigrants" are. It suggests to me that even though there'll always be a bit of racial tension about, few people who live and work with the Asian community would actually want the BNP in power. Encouraging. Did I really just read that thracian was part of a daisy chain in his past? I'd like to concentrate on three very important words in that post - "perhaps even more". Sordid.
Babylon Posted 24 October 2009 Posted 24 October 2009 I think the mental scarring the last few posts have caused me, means I can no longer visit this thread. I'm off to wash myself in bleach and attempt to cleanse my mind.
Flynny Posted 24 October 2009 Posted 24 October 2009 I think the mental scarring the last few posts have caused me, means I can no longer visit this thread.I'm off to wash myself in bleach and attempt to cleanse my mind. If it's any help Babs: I hate opening them and always end up using my teeth. Worse though is the dribble of whatever that comes out...it's reluctant, there's not much of it and, altogether, it's like the third orgasm of a half-hour session. Nothing like you'd want it to be!
Thracian Posted 24 October 2009 Posted 24 October 2009 What has polygamy got to do with overpopulation? From Wikipaedia: Polygamy exists in three specific forms, including polygyny (one man having multiple wives), polyandry (one woman having multiple husbands), or group marriage (some combination of polygyny and polyandry). Historically, all three practices have been found, but polygyny is by far the most common.[2] Confusion arises when the broad term "polygamy" is used when a narrower definition is intended. [edit] Polygyny Polygyny is the situation in which one man is either married to or involved in sexual relationships with a number of different women at one time. This is the most common form of polygamy.[2 Evidence is wiespread and fairly obvious. While polygamy doesn't necessarily lead to increased birthrate in itself the point is that the potential is there and to great effect on any society. Polygamy helped many Muslim societies to replace fighters killed in endless battles, and helped to renew populations in places were disease was rife. I'd also draw attention to the following published in 2006. http://asianfanatics.net/forum/index.php?s...amp;pid=1910572 And this seems to give as good example of the potential as any: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/unfpa/the-pr...n_b_189123.html And in relation to the future (potential) population of the West I would mention this: http://www.realclearreligion.com/index_fil...4a5df6-432.html And why should anyone be concerned? Well, this gives an insight and seems to be pretty much repeated across Europe..... http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/06/muslims-...-demanding.html
Shrenchel Posted 24 October 2009 Posted 24 October 2009 Thrac can bust a nut 3 times in half an hour?! Why is he always so gloomy?!
Guest Posted 24 October 2009 Posted 24 October 2009 Blah I know what polygamy is, but not everybody marries to have children. I don't see what the concern is in the UK, as the birth rate is falling, and immigration is needed to bolster the numbers. You have stated that you don't like the idea of our population being increased by way of immigration, so surely you would prefer to see the indigenous population increased from within.
Thracian Posted 24 October 2009 Posted 24 October 2009 Did I really just read that thracian was part of a daisy chain in his past? I might have been incarcerated in a boys grammar school by my well-meaning teacher of a mother but I was a father-to-be at 17, I married my son-to-be's lovely mother at 18 (42 years ago this week) and otherwise spent all my spare time playing football. That didn't mean I was in any way naive or ignorant of life around me. Indeed, as mentioned elsewhere in the recent past, by the time I was 15 I'd had three guys try to abduct me and a YMCA official try to compromise me before a gymnastics class. I suppose being extremely fit didn't help. To this day I mostly regret what happened to one of the guys as a result. A severe warning would probably have sufficed and I don't think what actually happened will ever have changed him anyway. But that doesn't mean he wasn't one scary bloke to a kid of 13 and more especially when he was trying to pull me down a dark alleyway in the middle of Leicester. Such things leave a lasting impression I can promise.
Fosse Boy Posted 24 October 2009 Posted 24 October 2009 I stand by my decision. Good thing it's not you who gets to decide then. Thrac can bust a nut 3 times in half an hour?! Why is he always so gloomy?!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.