Huguenot

Britain won't need bailing out if the incoming government presents a sensible plan to cut spending that means money markets don't cut HMG's AAA credit rating. As I've said before, I don't object to cuts in spending, I only wish the parties would be more honest about its providence, rather than bullshitting about 'waste'.

Charliecharlie, I think everyone gets what you're saying :'( The posts have gone. The threads are gone. Nothing will change that. It was necessary because there isn't the resource to sustain the forum at that level. You angst has been worthwhile, as now a new solution has been found (which deletes unused threads rather than ones started a long time ago). It doesn't change what's happened. It's sad, but there you go.

Ah, but it's so cute that Bumbalina just copied it onto her phone so she can tell the girls at work tomorrow ;-) Admittedly I did tell it very well. *keeps straight and rather prim face*

Don't think I could have a go at fisking here, no Fee Fie Fo Fum to bandy around. This thread has got into that awful habit of quoting posts already quoting posts already quoting posts, and then sticking ten words comment at the bottom. It's made me cross-eyed. I bet lexicographers never realised the enormous influence to be wielded by the unassuming '>'.

East, do a search on tomchance on the forum and you'll find your answer. The Greens are predictably and painfully underresourced. It's meant that they've had to focus their efforts in South Camberwell. He's been pretty honest, and explained that if he could he would have committed more resource in ED but he was 'tween a rock and hard place. It's a shame really, when on 'policies not parties' they score so highly.

This one, or another one?

You're on a roll here KD! Go for it. Still no explanation to support your smears, and now you're having a go at Tessa.

;-) I think the definition of nutjob in this particular sense is someone who thinks the world should vote on a 'Kevin's garden fence' issue and makes a load of unsubstantiated smears on people who aren't even supposed to be representing him. It's your choice Kevin lad. Either put up or shut up - where's those 'facts'? No facts = nutjob.

Why would you expect the press to have an embargo? They're not idiots. This one anyone (election day '92): http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/71/Sunkinnock.jpg

I suspect, not unkindly KD, that you're an absolute nutjob. In your situation I think you should be aggravated if the Pope doesn't take a personal interest. I think you should also remember that this is persoanl, and it's you they're out to get. They talk about you a lot when you're not there.

LOL SteveT! My bet is that if you run a campaign called 'Spics Out' that the Spanish would be entirely likely to run an equivalent campaign called 'Brits Out'. There are currently 945,000 Brits in Spain. I'm sure you imagine you can have your cake and eat it. ;-)

Exactly RosieH, because they weren't electing anyone. Use your vote!

So still no evidence and no explanation? Just mudslinging and innuendo, unsubstantiated cash claims, luridly coloured flamer websites, fantasies about the High Court of Justice and weird 'secret knowledge'. If this was the kind of stuff you were putting in your emails to councillors it's not really surprising they'd delete them before reading them. It's possible that you may need treatment, not access to a local representative. Bonkers. It's just such a shame that you should try to drag down innocent bystanders as you go.

Flipping heck, even more accusations KD, and still no explanation of your predicament. I love your 'may be going to the High Court of Justice', may it also be going to Parliament? May it also be going to the European Court of Human Rights? May it also be going to the Hague? :) Come on KD, stop casting unsubstantiated smears and offer an explanation. At the moment your secrecy isn't making you out as a warrior for justice, but making you appear to be a sneaky mudslinger. I'm sure you don't want this?

*Hangs head in shame*

There you go again, using 'Lib Dem' repetitively. Despte being exposed you keep doing it. Weird. You're up to something aren't you KD? Is it possible you think you're smarter than all the people on this forum, so you think they won't find out? Is it possible that there's a little bit of a manipulative streak behind all this?

Really? ?50,000.00? Come on, do tell! Stop teasing us. It gets better and better. I do have to say though, that for ?50,000.00 I'd be in court, not setting up luridly coloured flamer websites. You keep on saying 'Lib Dem', suggesting this is a party political issue? Did they say things like 'As a Liberal Democrat I shall delete your emails' or 'As a Liberal Democrat I will not support your cause' or 'As a Liberal Democrat I will write letters that you find confusing'? I rather suspect that actually you have a problem with a councillor, not a political party ;-) Anyway, at the moment you've provided no evidence that they 'failed', you've only demonstrated that you haven't got what you wanted and it's made you angry. Your solution to this seems to have been to set up a smear campaign with an unpleasant whiff of 'hidden agenda' about it.

On another note, don't you think you come across as a bit of a megalomaniac if you think the nation should not vote for a particular political party because you didn't get a satisfactory solution to a problem with your garden fence? ;-) I'm sure for you it's the end of the world, but other people possibly have other priorities.

Well KD there are plenty of people for whom their local councillors have beeen a huge asset. Assuming that all of this is above board, it's worth remembering that their time is necessarily limited. They address council matters in their free time. As a result they can't do everything, and prioritise those enquiries they can. It seems that your enquiry has slipped down that list for some reason. You need to consider what that reason may be. To paraphrase you, you seem to have decided that the reason is they're all lazy liars. To the readers of this forum that seems to be both arbitrary, rude and in conflict with their own experiences. As with them, I suspect there's some other reason, and if you scratch your head you probably know what it is too. It may even be in that 'confusing' letter. I look forward to discovering if your complaint has any merit.

Sorry Kevin, I just can't see any good reasons there? It mainly looks like a rant from someone who didn't get their own way. You can't expect people to take your word for it can you? For all we know your request could have been outrageously inappropriate, and their responses reasonable.

Hmph. All very witty. I don't think you can be a sanctimonious hypocrite, because you have to be hypocritical to be sanctimonious. It's tautology. Besides which, just to nip it in the bud before this joke becomes accepted wisdom, bigot has never been defined as sanctimonious hypocrite. It's always been associated with small mindedness, racial discrimination and obstinacy. Apparently it started as a slang word to criticise the Frogs, or the Normans, or something. Quite clearly Gillian Duffy demonstrated all of those traits, although there's a question of degree. There are undoubtedly a large number of people in the country (and in my own family) who are prejudiced but essentially nice. It's not practical to take them on, instead you follow them around apologising and try and mitigate for the destruction that lies in their wake. It's quite funny that Gordy most offended Duffy because she couldn't understand how an 'educated' man could call her a bigot. It was, of course, his education that allowed him to recognise a bigot when he saw one, even if she was a nice harmless bigot.

Spoiling your vote to make statement is just childish. Politicians aren't like mummy and dadddy. If you fold your arms and stick your bottom lip out because you don't like something they won't go down to the shops and buy you a special treat. Politicians only need to be elected. You 'train' politicians like you train a dog. If they cooperate you put them in power, if they don't you elect someone else. A spoiled ballot effectively means you've stopped 'training' because you're in a sulk. As a result our politicians/dogs do exactly what they were doing in the first place. This is so blindingly obvious that spoiling ballot papers is mostly the preserve of first year students and cross-eyed antipodeans.

Can a breeze lollop? ;-) Here's a Wind Rose for London for the year 2004, it's westerly westerly westerly. I reckon that 30% figure is a load of old trout ;-) : I just don't think given that evidence that you could visit ED 7 times on the trot when there were no planes. PS "I must say I was a bit suprised at some of the 'mocking' responses" What? I think honk took the mickey out of you, most people agreed with you, and the odd one made some sweeping generalisations and accusations of chicanery that simply didn't stand up under scrutiny. Besides, 'mocking'?? Isn't that what happens in 1923?

Sure, just wasted 25 minutes watching the whole Gary Taubes rubbish. I can summarise, and I've seen it somewhere before: "Eating too many calories doesn't necessarily make you fat, but you can't get fat without eating too many calories."

espelli, I can't believe you trot out Gary Taubes. He's a journalist with no medical/nutritional/dietary training who sells books because he disagrees with doctors and appeals to Daily Mail readers. People buy his books because they justify bad habits. He parasites on losers because they buy his books. He doesn't care if they die, he's rich. He never signed the Hippocratic Oath. Shame on you.