Keyless Entry - security

[Dave Plowman (News)]

We seem to be happy enough to have about the highest density of CCTV cameras anywhere.

So big brother really is watching you.

[whisky-dave]

No big brother is a TV program, and in orwells 1984 computers didnlt exist and neither did the media, wasnt it huxley that got closser to reality

[T i m]

Go on, see if you can work it out for yourself.

Some are. They are often called 'floating voters' and so good targets for persuasion.

1/3 of the electorate voted leave (fact). 2/3 of the electorate didn't vote leave (fact).

So we leave (maybe).

To you I'm guessing.

It generally does, yes. If someone simply CBA to vote they just don't bother. If they wish to retain the right to vote but can't make an informed decision then an 'NOTA' is an accepted and understood way of doing that.

What do you think? Do you actually have a point yet?

Yes there was, it was called 'Leave' and only 1/3rd of the electorate ticked it.

Cheers, T i m

[Fredxx]

This old chestnut!

16,141,241 of the electorate voted Remain (fact) 30,358,760 of the electorate didn't vote Remain (fact).

for every 100 voters for Remain, 108 voted for Leave

That is the country's wish, I would hope so.

Well 65% didn't oppose change is perhaps a more accurate picture

Quite, and they were in a minority of the electorate.

[Andy Burns]

It doesn't matter how many times you state that, it'll never be the same as 2/3 of the electorate voting to stay,

Since you weren't interested enough to cast your vote you can't really talk.

[Fredxx]

What is sad is that some make claims as being facts, but the only fact that matters is we're leaving.

We have some very sore losers.

[Max Demian]

How will they know you are who you say you are?

[Max Demian]

But do you know them personally (rather than professionally)?

[whisky-dave]

Yes and what is the protocol, do you approach them with your trousers neatly folded over the left or right arm ?

[T i m]

Hmmm ... c h e s t n u t s ... ;-)

Ah, people that rushed out to vote for what they already had. Yeah, makes sense.

Ah, people that rushed out to vote for what they already had. Yeah, makes sense.

Nope, 1/3rd voted to change the status quo, the other 2/3rds didn't, the burden lay entirely on those *actively / wanting* to CHANGE FROM the *status quo* who need to do that. Full stop.

You are in a space capsule with two others on a tried and tested trajectory to a safe landing. ONE of you says, 'ere, I think that if we change the angle a bit, we will get down quicker, so, who is up for it?', do you think that a lack of vote is any different from a negative vote (not that one was called for or required in that case either) when it comes to making that sort of *decision to change*?

It's not making *a decision* to retain the status quo, it's a consequence of not *choosing* to do anything else / different.

We only know that it's 1/3 of the electorates wish ... and we specifically know it's against the wishes of at least another 1/3rd. I would hope we *didn't* act on something so split.

Only if you count (let's say) apathy as an acceptance of change which is not logical. To get why you would need a reasonable EQ and I'm not sure that's a particular trait of most fanatic brexiteers. ;-(

Frightening isn't it. Hopefully we (the electorate) will actually be able to have the final say, once we have the faintest idea what Brexit actually means (as it may be so far away from what most people thought they were voting for, even they wouldn't want it).

?If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy?

Cheers, T i m

[T i m]

"Hands up who wants to leave the EU?" "Thanks guys, from that we have learned that only 1/3 of you [1]

*actually want* to leave the EU, so we won't.

I know what did happen. I suggesting what should have happened.

How did you manage to come to that conclusion? Was it the same technique you used to place *your* vote? (I really hope not).

Thanks. This is what you call 'democracy' is it Andy?

Cheers, T i m

[1] And not just near 1/2 either, the 2/3rds Farage required before it was considered 'a win'.

[whisky-dave]

Yep that's the idea, if you want something vote for it, took a while but pe rhaps you've sussed how it works now.

Be interesting to see what the next thing the public will be asked to vote on and to see how that goes.

Presonlly I think it's a good idea to get peolpe in to the practice of voti ng fopr what they want rather than staying at honme sitting on the sofa to get what they want.

[Andy Burns]

I would have agreed with you, if someone had suggested setting e.g. a specific majority before the referendum; but nobody did, and it's nonsense to suggest changing it afterwards.

Well, if you were interested, why didn't you vote?

Well ... yes. If you don't participate you have literally *not* had your say when you had the chance to.

I'm not trying to be funny, but you're one of the people who keep raising the "2/3 didn't vote for" as though it is equivalent to "2/3 voted against" when it just isn't.

If the referendum hadn't been on Brexit, but instead had been on paying pensions to all pets over 11 years old, I'd still be arguing that a result is a result.

[Andy Burns]

You think any politician is going to touch another referendum this century?

[Fredxx]

The Scottish vote a while ago required a specific percentage of the electorate to vote for independence. In other words there was no distinction between a stay vote or no vote at all, therefore those staying in the UK didn't bother to vote.

A result was those voting for independence won with a landslide majority, but still lost the vote. That isn't democracy.

Poor losers can't get over the simple fact that for every Remain vote there were 108 for Brexit.

Made worse if you couldn't be bothered to vote, you were in effect voting for the winners.

Anyone thinking that anyone who couldn't be bothered to vote is a remainer isn't very bright.

Thankfully even Remain politicians can generally accept the result of a referendum, with a few loser exceptions.

[T i m]

It may be to you because you obviously consider such still to be democratic.

Or you could just re-phrase that as an unloaded question, if you are actually interested in the answer?

That was then, you are trying to limit my freedom of speech now.

No, I have never said the two were the same, ever. What you seem to be missing (intentionally or otherwise) is the spirit, the human / real world feeling, cause and effect behind / with all of this. We aren't asking the pupils to vote for the best teacher, we are asking them (us, where the vast majority have the intellectual and factual insight of children on this matter) to decide if they should demolish the existing school and move into another (yet unknown) one.

And you would be doing it without me because *that* wouldn't impact millions of people into the distant future? ;-(

So, we asked people to make a binary decision about an analogue subject without giving them any facts.

If you consider those grounds to be likely (at least) to unsure we have a good chance of coming out of this better off AND that any outcome to still democratically reflect the actual will of the people, they we are obviously working from two completely different bases.

Mr Davis said: ?If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy?.

So, given 'some' were tricked into voting without actually knowing what they were voting for (some of us realised we didn't have the facts and therefore *couldn't* vote), or didn't need to be tricked because they were already on a crusade for some reason or another (many bogus and some pretty unpleasant) and with no countable 'We don't know what we are voting for yet' (defer referendum till after we do or at least know more) option, many (a third!) didn't vote at all.

So, ignoring what has happened Andy ... and the majority margin thing ... does the position you see us in now sit comfortable with you?

Do you *believe* a fairly informed public have exercised their democratic vote and we are *all* now heading in the same positive direction? Or is it that the whole thing is a mess and could easily be just nullified, we wait for the final deal and *then* give people the chance to *actually* vote on the *facts*?

The big question shouldn't be why I didn't vote but how anyone (outside the fanatics) did.

Heads or tails anyone? ;-)

Cheers, T i m

[T i m]

As it should be. There should be no requirement to vote for what you already have, the default, the status quo. The concept is stupid and pointless.

Hands up who would like an ice cream?

WTF would you *then* ask:

"Hands up who doesn't want an ice cream" and then "Hands up who doesn't care or can't answer for some reason?"

The ONLY count that matters to the question is now many people WANT ice creams.

If the intention is that everone *will* be forced to have an ice cream if the vote went that way, I'd hope that would only be done when at least 2/3rds voted for it.

Ok.

IYHO I'm guessing.

Cheers, T i m

[Fredxx]

The result was Nationalist said it proved there was overwhelming support for independence and resulting in the election of a nationalist party. Hence the Scottish has another referendum.

I suppose you would say the same about a government, that until 60% of the electorate voted for an alternative party, the current one should stay?

That isn't how democracy works, and it's a silly childish example.

You sound the sort to force ice cream on someone who doesn't want one?

Poor losers can't get over the simple fact that for every Remain vote there were 108 for Brexit.

Made worse if you couldn't be bothered to vote, you were in effect voting for the winners.

Anyone thinking that anyone who couldn't be bothered to vote is a remainer isn't very bright.

[Vir Campestris]

"The EU has changed since we joined. Hands up who wants to stay in?"

Andy

[Bob Eager]

I know the Canon personally.