• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

81 Excellent

About Stupooey

Profile Information

  • Location
    Nong Ya Plong

Previous Fields

  • Location
    Nong Chok

Recent Profile Visitors

2,524 profile views
  1. I did think about that, but as all the other places mentioned - Sattahip, Koh Chang, Pranburi - are precise locations it seemed inconsistent to throw a province into the mix.
  2. Has anyone told them that Phetchaburi is inland?
  3. Sorry, I thought 25 was just a figure you'd plucked from the air, or maybe 52 reversed. Point taken. Or it would have been if I could have understood what it was.
  4. On 24/6/16 only 52% were moaners. What has happened since is that the other 48% have joined them, so the UK now has 100% moaners. Glad I live in Thailand.
  5. What amazes me is that anyone believes people will take something written in the Daily Mail seriously. Prayut's most (only?) sensible ruling has been to ban this comic in Thailand.
  6. 2 menus? You mean one written in English and the other in Thai? How dare they!
  7. Reminds me of the old joke: What's the difference between a vitamin and a hormone? You can't hear a vitamin.
  8. If everyone has to agree with everyone else before they post, they may as well close down the forum. The rest of your post would appear to be a reply to someone else as it bears no relevance to anything I said.
  9. Euroscepticism has been there all along, allowing other more committed countries to set the EU agenda. It has been brought to the surface relatively recently by the rise of Nationalism, as espoused by UKIP and other neo-Fascist parties. Please explain the major decisions which have had such an impact on people's lives - they haven't made it into the newspapers in Thailand, and my friends and relatives in the UK seem to know nothing about them.
  10. After the 1975 referendum, when the people voted 67-33 (getting close to "will of the people" figures there) did the Euros(c)eptics accept defeat? No, they carried on crying and wailing for 42 years. All the time the UK should have been taking the lead, or at the very least sharing it, we allowed others to set the agenda, only to then whinge when the direction taken was not to the s(c)eptics liking. Maybe in 42 years' time, by which we may have finished unravelling the previous 42, we shall have another referendum and the process will start all over again. Or maybe not.
  11. I amfinding it more and more difficult to reply to your posts as you insist on misquoting me (or is it a simple lack of understanding?). I never said that the national dailies I did not mention by name were neutral, by implication broadsheets other than the Telegraph supported remain and tabloids except the Mirror supported leave. I did not mention the Evening Standard as it is not a national daily, although I would have expected them to be in the remain camp as London (particularly the City) was always expected to be a loser with a leave vote. Regarding the demographic, I take it that you are saying that the various organisations who produced the statistics made up the information rather than extrapolate from random samples. Whilst nobody can guarantee complete accuracy, the fact that all the different sets of statistics were more or less consistent with each other would imply that they were resonably accurate. They may have been interpreted differently by different people, but I wasn't going into that. Freak statistics, such as the one that hit the headlines claiming that only 36% of under-25's had voted, were quickly shown to have been based on incorrect information (2015 election), whilst the true figure was more like 64%. I was eligible to vote and have already made clear my reason for not doing so. However I still have vested interests in the UK - friends, family and pension - so feel I am still entitled to pass comment. I was opposed to the referendum from the outset and felt that such an important decision should have been left to a free vote in Parliament, which of course is where UK Sovereignty lies. Now the decision has been made of course I realise there is no point moaning about the result, and I genuinely hope the outcome is positive, although I lack your confidence.
  12. If you are going to quote me, at least make your reply relevant to the points I made. What is "just BS"? What did I get wrong? If you mean the name of the EU President, I do happen to know it. And of course I know that most news presentation is edited - don't patronise me - but it is rarely so blatant or so poorly executed as here: I seem to remember on a couple of occasions Tommy Robinson asked a question and the reply was edited out, presumably because it did not match his agenda. My point was that many TV posters did not seem to realise this, as they were mocking the protesters in general because a handful of them were being made to appear ignorant. Finally saying I am like an idiot is tantamount to calling me an idiot, which I resent. Personal insults have no place in adult debate, let alone the TV forum.
  13. Glad you mentioned Gisela Stuart - I was thinking of her whilst watching the (clearly carefully edited) interviews with the anti-Brexit demonstrators,wondering how many Brexiteers would have been able to name their erstwhile leader. And, more pertinently, how many of the TV members mocking the protestors would have identified her?
  14. Don't really understand your comments regarding the demographic. Surely that is the statistics and doesn't need interpretation, it speaks for itself. Unless of course you are arguing with the actual numbers, which seemed to be consistent across several seemingly reliable and impartial (although I suppose that can't be guaranteed) sources. However, if you want to see statistics twisted, just look at your own - you have made the common mistake of not comparing like with like. Regarding the turnout, many people do not vote in a general election because the result in their constituencies is a foregone conclusion. You should be comparing it with marginals, where the turnout is normally much higher, as much as 80% in some constituencies in 2015. Similarly you cannot compare voter majority in a two horse race with the many different parties who contest a general election. Having said that, it could be argued that the 2010-2015 government had a bigger mandate as the Conservatives and Lib Dems together had 56% of the vote. Regarding the 'will of the people', I have always been opposed to referenda per se. Particularly when the vote is close, they seem to create more problems than they solve, which is possibly why they are so rarely employed (and then usually to settle intra-party disputes). I sometimes wonder where we would be if the gap had been 0.1% rather than 3.8%. Presumably things would have panned out exactly as they have to date (if not, what would have been different?) but it could hardly have been said to be 'the will of the people', which to me implies a substantial majority. A major constitutional amendment such as this, effectively unravelling the last 43 years, should have required a 2 to 1 majority, as is normal in most walks of life. As for newspapers, in my understanding the only major daily tabloid to support remain was the Daily Mirror, and the only major daily broadsheet to support leave was the Daily Telegraph. Nevertheless, even though I would have voted remain, I would have preferred to have received my information from the Telegraph than the Mirror. The split by circulation was 72:28 in favour of leave, which I would not have called - in your parlance - "fair". Lastly, my decision not to vote was purely because, as a non-resident with no intention of returning to live in the UK, I felt it was morally indefensible for me to help decide the country's future. And at no stage did I say all the people who voted were stupid, my "stupidity" comment was aimed at politicians in general, not individual voters. I clearly underestimated the stupidity of TV members (said with tongue planted firmly in cheek).
  15. No shame at all. I quoted facts based on the publicised demographic split of the vote, which does seem to touch a raw nerve with many people. I also referred to the stupidity of the electorate in general, not specifically leave voters. It is no secret that the surprise General Election results of 1992 and 2015 were effectively engineered by Sun readers blindly following their newspaper's instructions like sheep, so one could argue that the remain cause was doomed from the time the Sun came out in support of Brexit. Voters also tend to cast negative votes (typically 55% in a General Election), and the Referendum gave them too many different things they could vote against, as listed in my original post. I chose not to vote myself, being non-resident, but looking at the overall picture I do not believe that the result accurately reflected the "will of the people".